In a lengthy opinion published November 7, 2016, Judge Sontchi of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court provided a thorough analysis of the interaction between the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”) and the Bankruptcy Code. Judge Sontchi’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”). The Opinion was issued in the Chapter 15 case In re Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited, Case No. 13-12159.

On November 8, 2016, Judge Kevin Gross of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion (the “Opinion”) that affects nine different bankruptcy cases. The Opinion was issued in response to the request of Honeywell and Ford for access to asbestos claimants’ Rule 2019 exhibits. A copy of the Opinion is available here.

On October 27, 2016, Chief Judge Brendan L. Shannon of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion overruling objections to the claims of Seegrid’s former CEO. A copy of the Opinion is available here.

In the decision of Motors Liquidation Co. Avoidance Action Trust v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (In re Motors Liquidation Co.), 552 B.R. 253 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2016), the SDNY bankruptcy court held that prepetition interest payments on a term loan did not qualify as “settlement payments” under Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code.

In my May 26th post, I raised several questions that unsecured creditors in any Chapter 11 case should know the answers to and take action where appropriate. One of those questions is “Am I entitled to priority payment?” This is also important to answer in a Chapter 7 case.

In an 8 page decision dated October 19, 2016, Judge Carey of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court overruled an objection to the reclassification of the claim of a terminated employee. Judge Carey’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”). This employee (“Mangan”) was a fifteen year veteran of the Debtor, and was entitled to 15 weeks of severance pay upon termination. That is not in dispute.

A recent decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas in In re Sanjel (USA) Inc.,et al., Case No. 16-50778-CAG (Bankr. W.D. Tex. July 29, 2016) explains that in a Chapter 15 case, the U.S. bankruptcy court will not always apply the law of the foreign jurisdiction to U.S. creditors and U.S.-based claims.

Imagine you are the CEO of company sitting across from an interviewer. The interviewer asks you the age old question, “So tell me about your company’s strengths and weaknesses?” You start thinking about your competitive advantages that distinguish you from competitors. You decide to talk about how you know your customers better than the competition, including who they are, what they need, and how your products and services fit their needs and desires. The interviewer, being somewhat cynical, asks “Aren’t you worried about the liabilities involved with collecting all that data?”

A recent opinion issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois reminds us that corporate veil-piercing liability is not exclusive to shareholders. Anyone who is in control of and misuses the corporate structure can be found liable for the obligations of the corporation. The facts of this case, however, did not support personal liability for veil-piecing.

On October 11, 2016, Chief Judge Brendan L. Shannon of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court issued a letter ruling in which he opined on the appropriate valuation of a first lien. A copy of the Opinion is available here.