On May 4, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, No. 14-116, a case which deals with issues of finality and appealability of orders in bankruptcy proceedings. In a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that a bankruptcy court’s order denying confirmation of a Chapter 13 debtor’s proposed repayment plan is not a final order and thus is not immediately appealable.

BACKGROUND

When an individual contemplates filing for bankruptcy protection, he or she has a few options. One is to file a Chapter 7 case, and another is to file a Chapter 13 case. In a Chapter 7, all of a debtor’s non-exempt assets are transferred to a bankruptcy estate to be liquidated and distributed to creditors. In a Chapter 13, the debtor retains assets and makes payments to creditors according to a court-approved plan.

Upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition, an automatic stay goes into effect which provides a debtor with immediate protection from collection efforts by creditors. But the automatic stay is not without limitations.

The Court of Chancery issues a liberal ruling on creditor derivative standing and more obsequies for the “zone of insolvency.” 

In litigation, obtaining a judgment is step one. Step two – often as, if not more, difficult than winning a lawsuit – is collection. In a short, interesting Memorandum of Decision and Order (the “Decision”), Judge Dales of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Michigan (the “Bankruptcy Court”), writes about some of the practical and legal considerations involved with pursuing collection of a bankruptcy court judgment.

There has been much discussion in the media in the past year about the massive amount of professional fees that have been wracked up during the City of Detroit's Chapter 9 bankruptcy. There is always great interest - and debate - about such fees due to the nature of the process: insolvent individuals or companies with no place left to turn file for bankruptcy, creditors take a "haircut" on their claims, and the lawyers get paid. Or so the story goes. As with any complex process, though, there is plenty of nuance that gets lost in the wash, and often is more to the story.

On June 25, 2014, the United States Supreme Court ruled that cloud-based television-streaming service, Aereo, violated U.S. copyright law and its subsequent Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing has come to a dramatic conclusion. We have followed this case throughout its lifecycle, and updated this blog with posts like this one to keep you up-to-date on its implications for copyright and telecommunications regulations.

It is trite to observe that issues related to the insolvency of a company are not arbitrable. However, the generality of this broad proposition can be misleading. In this the first of two articles on the arbitrability of claims, we look at how a court may approach a winding up petition in the face of a claim that the purported debt on which the petition is based relates to a dispute that is to be arbitrated.

The court provides guidance on liability if a subsidiary goes bankrupt because of the misconduct and careless management of its parent company.

Over the last few years, employees have increasingly sought to hold the parent companies of their employers liable for the subsidiaries’ actions by trying to demonstrate that the parent entity is the employee’s co-employer, i.e., that the employee has two employers: the company that hired him or her and its parent company.

To demonstrate this co-employment situation, the employee must prove either that

The new law extends the grounds for shareholders’ liability and invalidation of transactions.

On 26 March 2014, the new Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Law (the New Law) took effect in Kazakhstan. The New Law supersedes the Bankruptcy Law adopted in 1997 (the Old Law).