While the arrival of His Royal Highness Prince George Alexander Louis of Cambridge has dominated the British (and the world) headlines this week, the U.K. Supreme Court delivered its own long awaited bundle of joy earlier today. In the latest decision in the laborious Nortel and Lehman litigations, the U.K. Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision and held that pension claims should not be treated as priority claims and, instead, they should rank equally with general unsecured claims.

Thanks to Anna Nicole Smith and the June 2011 landmark Supreme Court decision in Stern v. Marshall, there are seemingly more questions regarding a bankruptcy judge’s authority to enter final orders (or even proposed orders) than ever before. Those unanswered questions have created considerable uncertainty and, not surprisingly, lengthier and costlier litigation in bankruptcy. Thankfully, the Supremes decided on June 24, 2013 that they will address two of the many questions left unanswered by Stern.

Unsecured creditors in chapter 11 cases face the prospect of two financial blows: the possibility of not receiving full payment of their claims and the cost of attorney's fees for defending their interests. But these creditors may be able to take comfort in a small but growing trend -- the ability to have the attorney's fees paid from the debtor's assets under the debtor's chapter 11 plan. This outcome occurs in only a small number of cases, and unsecured creditors would be advised to not assume their attorney's fees will be reimbursed by the debtor.

The "WARN Act" (Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act) requires that larger employers provide 60 days' notice in advance of plant closings or other mass layoffs. This has long been in conflict with bankruptcy practice. A recent Fifth Circuit decision, In re Flexible Flyer Liquidating Trust, 2013 WL 586823, at *1 (5th Cir. Feb. 11, 2013), confirms that exceptions to the WARN Act apply in bankruptcy and interprets these exceptions more broadly than previous decisions.

Navigating the most recent leg in the Quebecor regatta, the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court and ruled that prepetition transfers made in connection with a securities contract may qualify for safe harbor from avoidance actions under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code—even if the transferee is a mere “conduit” or “intermediary” financial institution. In re Quebecor World (USA) Inc. (Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Quebecor World (USA) Inc. v. American United Life Insurance Co.), No. 12-4270-bk (2d Cir. June 10, 2013).

The Delaware Bankruptcy Court recently held that a third amendment to a lease agreement entered into for the purpose of leasing a second building could not be severed from the original lease agreement; and the debtor was not allowed to reject the lease on that second building under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.

It was just an old jalopy legally repossessed by his credit union . . . until he filed a bankruptcy petition and the red lights of the automatic stay started flashing. Smokey pulled the lender over and started issuing citations so be forewarned, put your hazard lights on and drive carefully through the postpetition fog, because this decision is relevant to all secured creditors under all Bankruptcy Code Chapters, not just car lenders under Chapter 13.

In bankruptcy proceedings, is a class action superior to the claims administration process as a vehicle for resolving claims under the federal and New York State Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the “WARN Act”)?  In Schuman v. The Connaught Grp., Ltd. (In re The Connaught Grp., Ltd.), Case No. 12-01051, Slip Op. (Apr.

As the American economy continues to slog through the ongoing Great Recession, even financially sound companies face challenges due to the continued economic malaise. In particular, a company that works with suppliers, customers and other business partners facing financial troubles needs to be prepared to handle the consequences of others' fiscal problems. Being attuned to signs of distress and taking defensive actions early can help strong companies avoid problems and be better positioned in the case of a significant event, such as a business partner filing for bankruptcy.

Can an equity investor who directs an insider to contribute "new value" to a debtor under a plan of reorganization, so as to retain his interest in the company, avoid an express market test for that new equity? The answer to that question is a resounding "no," according to Chief Judge Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in In re Castleton Plaza, LP, Case No. 12 Civ. 2639, 2013 WL 537269 (7th Cir. Feb. 14, 2013).