We have blogged a fewtimes about the Supreme Court’s decision in Siegel v. Fitzgerald and its implications.

On May 8, cryptocurrency platform Bittrex filed for chapter 11 in Delaware. Bittrex’s first day filings emphasize that, unlike many other crypto filings over the past year, this case is not a “free fall” bankruptcy. In fact, a plan has already been filed, and the first day declaration said the debtors “took extensive action pre-petition to ensure full customer recovery, and plan to swiftly bring these chapter 11 cases to a responsible conclusion.”

Although in the Ninth Circuit the decision to revisit an order under FRCP 60 is “highly discretionary,” judges still must explicitly grapple with the relevant factors. That was the clear message sent by Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. of the Northern District of California when reviewing an appeal from the PG&E Corporation’s chapter 11 bankruptcy.

In Short

The Situation: The U.S. Supreme Court considered whether § 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code, which limits a party's ability to undo an asset transfer made to a good-faith purchaser in a bankruptcy case, is jurisdictional.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York has ruled that a creditor or trustee seeking to recover a subsequent transfer under Section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code need not obtain a judgment of avoidance against the subsequent transferee before proceeding with the recovery action.

Persuading a bankruptcy judge to find “excusable neglect” after missing a filing deadline is usually a tough sell. You’d think it would be particularly hard when the party seeking relief was “belligerent and disrespectful to the Court and opposing counsel.”

A chapter 11 plan may be modified after votes have been solicited on the plan, but prior to confirmation, without providing creditors and interest holders with an amended disclosure statement and another opportunity to vote on the modified plan, provided, among other things, that the modifications do not adversely affect creditors or interest holders who previously voted to accept the plan.

A handful of recent high-profile court rulings have considered whether a chapter 11 debtor is obligated to pay postpetition, pre-effective date interest ("pendency interest") to unsecured creditors to render their claims "unimpaired" under a chapter 11 plan in accordance with the pre-Bankruptcy Code common law "solvent-debtor" exception requiring a solvent debtor to pay pendency interest to unsecured creditors. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit weighed in on this question in In re LATAM Airlines Grp. S.A., 55 F.4th 377 (2d Cir. 2022).

Like debtors, bankruptcy trustees, official committees, examiners, and estate-compensated professionals, foreign representatives in chapter 15 cases have statutory reporting obligations to the bankruptcy court and other stakeholders as required by the plain language of the Bankruptcy Code. Such duties include the obligation to keep the U.S. bankruptcy court promptly informed of changes in either the status of the debtor's foreign bankruptcy case or the status of the foreign representative's appointment in that case. Furthermore, chapter 15 provides a U.S.

Exception from Discharge of Debts for Fraud Committed by Business Partner

On February 22, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, No. 21-908, 2023 WL 214441 (U.S. Feb. 22, 2023), where it resolved a circuit split in ruling that a debt based on fraud committed by, or a false representation made by, the debtor's partner or agent is nondischargeable in the debtor's bankruptcy case.