On August 2, 2012, the Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit issued a decision in Lightfoot v. MXEnergy Electric, Inc. (In re MBS Management Servs., Inc.). No. 11-30553, (5th Cir. Aug. 2, 2012).

As NASA engineers breathe a sigh of relief after the “seven minutes of terror” that was the rover Curiosity’s landing on Mars, recipients of payments under commodity forward contracts can—at least in the Fifth Circuit—rest assured that agreements that meet the basic definition of forward contract contained in section 101(25) of the Bankruptcy Code will be protected from preference liability should their counterparties find themselves in bankruptcy. Last Thursday, in Lightfoot v. MXEnegry Electric, Inc. (In re MBS Management Servs., Inc.). No. 11-30553 (5th Cir. Aug.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a Chapter 11 plan that provides for the sale of assets free and clear of a creditor’s lien must allow the creditor to “credit bid” at the sale. In upholding the Seventh Circuit’s decision,¹RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank resolved the circuit split on this issue between the Seventh Circuit, on the one hand, and the Third and Fifth Circuits, on the other.

BANKRUPTCY CODE

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its much awaited decision in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 566 U.S. ______ (2012). The noteworthy decision resolves any uncertainty surrounding a secured creditor’s right to credit bid in a sale under a chapter 11 plan which arose after cases like Philadelphia Newspapers 599 F.3d 298 (3d Cir. 2010) curtailed the right.

Nearly a year has passed since the Supreme Court held, in Stern v. Marshall,¹ that bankruptcy courts may not determine a potentially broad range of “private rights” disputes arising in bankruptcy proceedings. Lower courts have grappled with the practical implications of Stern, but it is not yet clear whether the decision will ultimately result in a significant curtailment of bankruptcy court power or prove narrower in application.

TOUSA involved one of the largest fraudulent transfer litigations in bankruptcy history.  The Bankruptcy Court agreed with the Unsecured Creditors’ Committee that both the so-called “New Lenders” and the “Transeastern Lenders” received fraudulent transfers as part of a July 31, 2007 financing transaction.  The District Court reversed in a scathing opinion, but today the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed the District Court and reinstated the Bankruptcy Court’s opinion in its entirety.  The opinion can be found

On March 13, 2012 the Queen of Hearts in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals showed no sympathy for the White Rabbit’s plight and denied a creditor’s appeal of an order disallowing its late filed proof of claim in the DHL Master Land Holding LLC bankruptcy case.¹

On March 1, 2012 a number of important changes to the insolvency regime in Germany came into force.¹ The main objective of the reforms is to facilitate the restructuring of companies and to enhance creditor’s involvement. The German government believes – in light of the recent financial crisis – that these reforms are necessary to facilitate complex restructurings.

NEW PRELIMINARY CREDITORS’ COMMITTEE

Bankruptcy Courts may be courts of equity, but a recent decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York holds that even equity can’t trump the plain words of a settlement agreement.

The game is tied with three seconds to play in regulation: an inbounds pass, one dribble—and a long shot at the buzzer. It’s the drama we love and expect this month, but whether the result is the thrill of victory or the agony of defeat depends not only on whether the shot goes in but also whether it leaves the shooter’s hands before the buzzer sounds.1 Analogous madness arose this March in a recent complaint filed against an ad hoc group of hedge fund noteholders (the “Noteholders”) in Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust v.