Changes may be coming to the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor provisions.[1] In 2012 the American Bankruptcy Institute established a Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 (the “ABI Commission”), composed of many well-respected restructuring practitioners, including two of the original drafters of the Bankruptcy Code, whose advice holds great weight in the restructuring community.

Atlantic City has been struggling in recent years, and it remains unclear how the city’s problems will improve in the face of a deteriorating tax base.  According to the Update Report of Governor’s Advisory Commission on New Jersey Gaming, Sports and Entertainment, total Atlantic City casino revenues fell from a peak of $5.2 billion in 2006 to just $2.9 billion in 2013, and are projected to be approximately $2.5 billion in 2014. Four of the city’s 12 casinos have closed this year, including Caesars Entertainment Corp.’s The Atlantic Club and Showboat Atlantic City, the Trump Plaza

Click here to view the image.

Almost every year, changes are made to the set of rules that govern how bankruptcy cases are managed — the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The changes address issues identified by an Advisory Committee made up of federal judges, bankruptcy attorneys, and others.

On October 17, 2014, the Delaware Supreme Court held that under the Delaware Uniform Commercial Code, the subjective intent of a secured party is irrelevant in determining the effectiveness of a UCC-3 termination statement if the secured party authorized its filing.[1]  

Background

For years, it has been the rule in the Ninth Circuit that a chapter 11 plan cannot discharge or otherwise affect the obligation of a non-debtor owed to a third party. This view interprets section 524(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides that “the discharge of a debt of the debtor does not affect the liability of any other third entity on, or the property of any other entity for such debt,” to specifically prohibit the permanent release, discharge, or injunction of non-debtors. See 

Recent case law reminds practitioners and lenders to pay careful attention when drafting prepayment premium provisions in debt instruments or risk having the premiums disallowed in a borrower’s bankruptcy case.

United States Bankruptcy Courts, particularly in New York and Delaware, are already a destination for multinational corporate bankruptcy filings, but a recent study co-authored by Stephen J. Lubben, a Seton Hall Law School professor and frequent contributor to The New York Times’ DealBook blog, suggests that the current volume of foreign debtors filing in the U.S.

If you doubted it before, you can stop now. The trend of courts finding ways to protect trademark licensees from the harsh effects of losing their trademark license rights in bankruptcy is in full swing.

In a decision that will have profound implications for insolvency professionals of all types, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision that Section 330 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code does not allow applicants to seek compensation in connection with successful defenses to objections to fee applications.

In In re MPM Silicones, LLC, Case No. 14-22503 (RDD) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2014) (Momentive), the court dismissed a senior lien creditors’ suit alleging that the junior lien creditors breached an intercreditor agreement (ICA) with respect to shared collateral by taking and supporting certain actions adverse to the senior lien creditors.

BACKGROUND