The Stern v. Marshall Decision. In its 2011 decision in Stern v. Marshall, decided by a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court held that even though Congress designated certain state law counterclaims as “core” proceedings, Article III of the U.S. Constitution prohibits bankruptcy courts from finally adjudicating those claims. Stern v.

A recent decision by Judge Shannon of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware, In re Optim Energy, LLC, et al., No. 14-10262 (BLS) (Bankr. D. Del. May 13, 2014), highlights a shift in Delaware recharacterization jurisprudence.

In a ruling yesterday, Judge Christopher Sontchi of the United State Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware denied a motion by a bond trustee to transfer venue of the Dallas-based Energy Future Holdings from Wilmington, Delaware to the Northern District of Texas, citing broad support from many creditors for keeping the case before the Delaware court.

In December 2013 I wrote about the Innovation Act, H.R. 3309, a bill focused on patent infringement litigation and other patent law reforms that passed the House of Representatives on a bipartisan basis.

On Monday, May 29, 2014, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York approved Sbarro LLC’s plan of reorganization, paving the way for the pizza restaurant chain to exit bankruptcy.  Sbarro filed for chapter 11 protection earlier this year with a prepackaged plan that allowed its prepetition secured lenders to swap over $148 million in debt for control of the reorganized business if higher or otherwise better purchasers for Sbarro’s business did not overbid.  When no alternative purchasers materialized, Sbarro moved forward with its debt-for-equity swap

Three months ago, the U.S. District Court in Delaware upheld the bankruptcy court’s decision in In re Fisker Auto. Holdings, Inc., which limited, for “cause,” the amount that the purchaser of a secured lender’s claim could credit bid in connection with an asset sale under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code.

The District Court for the Southern District of New York recently issued an opinion in Davis v. Elliot Management Corp. (In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48102 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2014) that will have important implications for individual members of official creditor committees in future cases. 

In past print editions of Absolute Priority, we regularly reported on developments concerning the application of Bankruptcy Code provisions to the rights of landlords that lease non-residential real property to debtors operating in Chapter 11.  While these discussions typically focused on the treatment of a debtor’s rental obligations (and in particular, so-called “stub rent” owed by a debtor for the period beginning on the day that the bankruptcy petition is filed through the end of the month), considerable non-rental charges can also accrue under a lease on a postpetiti

Frank Grell is a partner at Latham & Watkins who chairs the firm’s German Restructuring and Insolvency Practice. In this interview, he reflects on several successful applications of the German Insolvency Act (Insolvenzordnung) since the law was passed in 2012 and the continued shift towards a restructuring-based approach to large corporate insolvencies.

The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and Antitrust Law recently held hearings regarding certain provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, including the safe harbor from preference and fraudulent conveyance claims for “settlement payments.”