As discussed in our prior blog entitled “New York’s Sovereign Debt Restructuring Proposals,”[1] three bills were introduced in the New York state legislature to overhaul the way sovereign debt restructurings are handled in New York. Those bills sought to implement a comprehensive mechanism for restructuring sovereign debt, limit recovery on certain sovereign debt claims, and amend the champerty defense.

The first half of 2023 witnessed the failure of three financial institutions in quick succession—Silicon Valley Bank (March 10, 2023), Signature Bank (March 12, 2023), and First Republic Bank (May 1, 2023). This was the first time three financial institutions failed in such a compressed time period since the Great Recession of 2008.

The saga of the first Ultra Petroleum Corp. chapter 11 cases appears to have finally come to an end. Numerous articles have been written on the tortured history of whether certain creditors of Ultra Petroleum are entitled to payment of their contractually mandated Make-Whole Amount and default rate of interest.

The extent and breadth of changes brought to the United States, and indeed, the world, by COVID-19 will probably not be fully understood for a long time.  There are, however, several legislative changes made in recent days that are likely to have an immediate impact on small businesses.  One that should be important for those advising small businesses in economic crisis are the amendments to The Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (H.R.

In the past several years, the United States has seen a tidal wave of retail sector chapter 11 cases. The end result for most of those cases has been going out of business and liquidation sales. On March 11, 2020, Modell’s Sporting Goods commenced its chapter 11 cases seeking to follow a similar path taken by other retailers by closing all 153 sporting goods stores in a controlled liquidation. Unfortunately for Modell’s, the COVID-19 crisis hit the United States just as Modell’s commenced its liquidation.

On March 18, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (the “District Court”), acting as appellate court for the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio (the “Bankruptcy Court”), affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s decision that certain alleged liability of the Debtor, Edward Dudley, Sr., stemming from his role as treasurer for certain charter schools, was dischargeable and not exempt from bankruptcy discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)(A)(ii).  That is the provision which excludes student loans and similar obligations from discharge.

In Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am. v. PG&E, 549 U.S. 443 (2007), the Supreme Court held that bankruptcy law does not disallow a post-petition unsecured claim for attorney’s fees to the extent such claim is authorized by a pre-petition contract and not otherwise expressly disallowed. That pronouncement should have stopped all future litigation over the issue. That has not been the case.

In a decision issued on December 28, 2018, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court, awarding chapter 11 debtor and creditors’ committee professionals their attorneys’ fees based upon a “carve-out” provision in the cash collateral order and ahead of the secured creditors, despite conversion of the case to chapter 7. East Coast Miner LLC v. Nixon Peabody LLP (In re Licking River Mining, LLC), Case No. 17-6310, 2018 US. App. LEXIS 36677 (6th Cir. 2018).

On appeal from a decision in the In re Energy Future Holdings Corp. bankruptcy case, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently held that contractual make-whole premium provisions are enforceable where the obligation to repay bond debt is accelerated by a bankruptcy filing.

Much has been written in the past several years regarding the scope of a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. ___ (2011) and Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison, 573 U.S. ___ (2014). Now, the Supreme Court has weighed in again in the case of Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd., et al v. Sharif, 575 U.S. ___ (2015) in an attempt to clarify the confusion created by Stern.