Even under the most sympathetic of circumstances, courts are charged with respecting the integrity of deadlines and employing a cool, impartial approach to everyone, including the most desperate of late claimants.

On May 1, 2019, FERC denied Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (“PG&E”) requests for rehearing of two prior orders in which FERC held that it and the bankruptcy courts have concurrent jurisdiction to review and address the disposition of wholesale power contracts sought to be rejected through bankruptcy. FERC’s order comes as the PG&E bankruptcy proceedings in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California (“Bankruptcy Court”) remain ongoing.

In a win for lenders, on March 18, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that an unambiguous make-whole provision in a loan contract was enforceable under New York law, despite the fact that the lender had accelerated the loan. In re 1141 Realty Owner LLC, 2019 WL 1270818 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2019).

Background

In a comprehensive report issued last week, the American Bankruptcy Institute Commission on Consumer Bankruptcy proposed recommendations that would allow student loans to be easier to discharge in bankruptcy, citing the staggering $1.5 trillion in student loan debt held in the United States and the current difficulties with discharging this type of debt in bankruptcy.

Last week, a Ninth Circuit panel held that plaintiffs in five related cases lacked standing to pursue their FCRA claims. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit held that the allegation that a credit report contained misleading information, absent any indication that a consumer tried to engage in or was imminently planning to engage in any transactions for which the alleged misstatements in the credit reports made or would make any material difference, does not constitute a concrete injury.

On March 11, 2019, a U.S. district court judge in California denied FERC’s motion to withdraw the reference of Pacific Gas and Electric’s (“PG&E”) adversary proceeding from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the ongoing jurisdictional dispute between FERC and the bankruptcy court. In his ruling, Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. of the U.S.

A U.S. Bankruptcy Court has denied a creditor’s motion for sanctions against a law firm in the Middle District of Florida which the creditor alleged engaged in serial filings.

A federal bankruptcy court for the Southern District of Florida has ruled that the owner of a computer-financing scheme cannot hide behind a bankruptcy filing to shield himself from complying with a contempt order that required him to pay $13.4 million for violating an FTC order.

This past Friday, February 8, 2019, a panel of the Fourth Circuit unanimously held that the Bankruptcy Code does not bar a creditor from asserting an unsecured claim for attorneys’ fees incurred after the filing of a bankruptcy petition if those fees are guaranteed by a pre-petition contract. In Summitbridge Nat’l Invs. III, LLC v. Faison, No. 17-2441, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 3967 (4th Cir. Feb.

In the recent decision of Re M.D.Y. Construction Ltd [2018] IEHC 676 the Examiner sought to have proposals for a scheme of arrangement confirmed by the High Court pursuant to section 541 of the Companies Act 2014 (the "Act"). The most interesting feature of the case was that the scheme of arrangement was proposed for approval by the Interim Examiner before his appointment was confirmed by the High Court.

Arrangement to be approved the day after application to confirm appointment