In a brief but significant opinion, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware reversed a decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware and allowed more than $30 million in unsecured, post-petition fees incurred by an indenture trustee ("Indenture Trustee").1 In reversing, the District Court relied upon a uniform body of Court of Appeals opinions issued on the subject.

On October 20, 2017, in In re MPM Silicones, LLC ("Momentive"), Nos. 15-1682, 15-1771, 15-1824, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, considering the Supreme Court's opinion in Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S. 465 (2004), adopted the Sixth Circuit's two-step approach to determining an appropriate cramdown interest rate that, in certain circumstances, results in the application of a market rate of interest. In doing so, the Second Circuit reversed the bankruptcy and district court holdings on the cramdown interest rate issue.

On June 22, Sears Canada Inc. ("Sears Canada") and certain affiliates1 (collectively, the "Sears Canada Group") sought and obtained insolvency protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the "Court"), which in turn appointed FTI Consulting Canada Inc. (FTI or the "Monitor") as monitor.

On June 27, 2017, the United States Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari regarding the decision In re Province Grande Olde Liberty, LLC, 655 Fed.Appx. 971 (4th Cir. Aug. 12, 2016) to decide a circuit split on the applicable standard for debt recharacterization.

On January 24, 2017, victims of Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme lost their appeal of a bankruptcy court decision barring them from suing an alleged Madoff co-conspirator because of a third-party injunction contained in a settlement between the alleged co-conspirator and the Trustee liquidating Madoff’s scheme. See A & G Goldman Partnership v. Capital Growth Company (In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC), 565 B.R. 510, 514-515 (S.D.N.Y. Jan.

On May 8, 2017, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida entered an order compelling production of attorney-client communications between Regions Bank and its counsel, finding that Regions had put those communications “at issue” by raising a good faith affirmative defense under 11 U.S.C. § 548(c) in response to a fraudulent transfer claim brought against it. Welch v. Regions Bank (In re Mongelluzzi), No. 8:14-ap-00653-CED (Bankr. M.D. Fla. May 8, 2017), ECF No. 319 (Delano, J.) (herein Mongelluzzi).

In First Southern National Bank v. Sunnyslope Housing Limited Partnership, No. 12-17241 (9th Cir. May 26, 2017), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in an en banc decision, held that, for purposes of confirmation of a plan of reorganization over a mortgagee’s objection, the value of the mortgagee’s secured claim was the value of the property as low income housing not the value the mortgagee would have received on foreclosure free of the low income housing restrictions.

The number of consumer claims filed since the Great Recession has skyrocketed. These claims include alleged violations of an “alphabet soup” of federal and state consumer protection statutes. These statutes allow prevailing plaintiffs to recover some combination of actual damages, statutory damages, and even attorney’s fees. They also present a minimal risk of liability for defense costs if the plaintiff does not prevail, which makes these types of claims enticing for plaintiffs’ attorneys.

In Pacifica L 51 LLC v. New Investments, Inc. (In re New Investments, Inc.), 840 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2016), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Section 1123(d) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a cure amount may include a post-default rate of interest if the underlying loan documents and applicable non-bankruptcy law provide for the payment of post-default rate interest upon a default.

For many litigants, the decision whether to prosecute or defend a lawsuit vigorously boils down to a rather basic calculus: What are my chances of success? What is the potential recovery or loss? Is this a "bet the company" litigation? And, how much will I have to pay the lawyers? In many respects, it is not all that different from a poker player eyeing his chip stack and deciding whether the pot odds and implied odds warrant the call of a big bet.