A divided Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled in the case of In re FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. on Dec. 12, 2019. The panel decided that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) share jurisdiction when a Chapter 11 debtor moves to reject a power purchase and sale contract over which the FERC has jurisdiction (Power Contract). However, the Sixth Circuit noted that such jurisdiction is not equal; declaring the bankruptcy court’s authority as primary and superior to that of the FERC.

Loan servicers’ employees are human beings. Loan servicing employees use systems designed by other human beings. We all know this and so should anticipate that there will be mistakes in loan servicing operations. Recently, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reminded us that how loan servicers plan for and react to inevitable mistakes is important. The case also has some good reminders for litigation counsel and planning tips for loan servicers.

The question of who is entitled to payment of compensation for PPI where a debtor has been discharged from his/her Protected Trust Deed (PTD) has given rise to conflicting judicial decisions in Scotland. In our previous article, we highlighted the uncertainty created following the decision of Sheriff Reid in the case of Donnelly v The Royal Bank of Scotland and the decision of Lord Jones in Dooneen Limited, t/a Mcginnes Associates and Douglas Davidson v David Mond.

On January 1, 2016, the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (UVTA) was enacted in Kentucky and can be found at KRS 378A.005 e seq.  The UVTA replaces KRS 378, which contained KRS 378.010, the Kentucky fraudulent conveyance statute, and KRS 378.060, the Kentucky preference statute.  Nationally, the UVTA will replace the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”).  According to the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, California, Georgia, Idaho, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, and North Dakota have joined Kentucky in enacting the UVTA. 

Increasingly, struggling businesses are opting to use Chapter 11 bankruptcy as a vehicle to sell substantially all of their assets. This is because Chapter 11 debtors can sell assets under uniquely buyer-friendly conditions. The last several years have revealed a clear trend in favor of quick liquidation by sale motion. As businesses continue to falter and fail due to the continuing financial crisis, it is likely that liquidations by Chapter 11 sale motion will continue to gain popularity.

Section 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code, which was added to the Code pursuant to the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Ace of 2005 ("BAPCPA"), creates an administrative claim in favor of pre-petition suppliers of goods under certain circumstances. From the time of its enactment, courts and practitioners have sought clarity regarding the correct interpretation of key elements of this section of the Code. This article examines the concept of the date of "receipt" of goods for purposes of §503(b)(9).

The chronology in many successful Chapter 11 cases is for the debtor to confirm its plan of reorganization, and then turn its attention to recovering preferential transfers of money or property made in the 90 days (or 1 year for insiders of the debtor) before the bankruptcy filing. This article explores the duty to provide information in the plan about possible preference actions, and the level of disclosure necessary to preserve them.

Can the owners of a company retain their equity interests in a Chapter 11 reorganization plan? The answer to this question is often critical in determining whether a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding is a desirable option for the company's owners. If the company is unable to pay its creditors in full, then the absolute priority rule prohibits owners from retaining their interests under a reorganization plan unless the owners contribute new value to the business that is both substantial and essential to the company's reorganization efforts.

In a perfect world, a debtor's bankruptcy would involve timely reporting, good faith filings, and full disclosures.  Unfortunately, some debtors either enter the process under a cloud of suspicion or make decisions during the process that suggest the estate has been compromised by fraudulent activity.  Whether the alleged fraud is a complex bust-out scheme or a simple unreported asset transfer, the debtor may face a serious investigation.  Depending on the extent of the allegations, the investigation could be referred as a criminal matter to federal prosecutors.  As the

In Salyersville Nat’l Bank v. Bailey (In re Bailey), 664 F.3d 1026 (6th Cir.