In a proceeding under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”), a judge has discretionary powers to, among other things, order debtor companies into bankruptcy and thereby resolve priority disputes. What should be the standard of review of such discretionary decisions? Historically, the standard has been high.

In Jubber v. SMC Electrical Products, Inc. et al. (In re C.W. Mining Co.), Case No. 13-4175 (Aug. 10, 2015), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that a single payment made by a debtor within the 90-day preference period to a seller, with whom the debtor had never done business, may satisfy the elements to be a payment in the “ordinary course” and, thus, not subject to a preference claim by the trustee.

Following the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steelworkers, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 271 (Indalex), creditors and their advisors have been closely following jurisprudence which considers the scope of the decision.

On May 4, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, holding that an order denying confirmation of the debtor’s proposed chapter 13 plan is not a “final” order that the debtor can immediately appeal. This holding could have a far-reaching impact on individual and corporate debtors in both chapter 11 and chapter 13 by in most instances eliminating their second bite at the apple in seeking confirmation of a plan.

This case is the product of yet another dispute in the extensive, multi-billion dollar fraud perpetrated by Tom Petters. In 2005, as the sole board member of Petters Group Worldwide, LLC (“PGW”), Petters directed the acquisition of Polaroid, which operated independently and legitimately as a going concern. In late 2007 and early 2008, Polaroid and other Petters companies began experiencing financial difficulties. In January 2008, PGW approached Ritchie about a loan and the next day, Ritchie loaned $31 million to PGW to pay debts of Polaroid and PGW.

As we noted in Parts 1 and 2 of this series, any buyer of assets from a company in any degree of financial stress should be concerned about the transaction being attacked as a fraudulent transfer. Officers and directors of a selling entity also have concerns about this risk due to potential personal liability.

This is a continuation of Part 1, discussing a number of published and unpublished decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit (the “BAP”) that impact both consumer and business bankruptcy practice throughout the circuit.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit (the “BAP”) issued a number of published and unpublished decisions in the fourth quarter of 2014 that impact both consumer and business bankruptcy practice throughout the circuit.

As discussed in Part 1 and Part 2 of this series, any buyer of assets from a company in any degree of financial stress should be concerned about the transaction being attacked as a fraudulent transfer.

In the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, the bankruptcy court dismissed a chapter 11 case for bad faith, relying in part on an email sent by someone other than the debtor relaying to his employees and sales representatives his conversation with the debtor’s chief executive officer. This decision serves as a reminder to debtor lawyers how imperative it is to review with your client what it is saying both privately and publicly about its bankruptcy case. Because even in bankruptcy court, anything you say can and will be used against you.