On May 29, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court  in RadLAX Gateway Hotel v. Amalgamated Bank, its first significant Chapter 11 opinion in several years, affirmed the  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit’s decision in River Road Hotel Partners v.  Amalgamated Bank, prohibiting a debtor from  selling assets free and clear of liens under a plan of reorganization without permitting a secured creditor to credit bid.  RadLAX resolves a circuit split and reverses prior rulings of the U.S.

On June 28, 2012, Stockton, California became the most recent municipality to file for bankruptcy under chapter 9, after having concluded a mandatory mediation process with its creditors. See, In re City of Stockton, California, Case No. 12-32118 (Bankr. E.D. Cal.). Many parties affected by a potential filing by other similarly situated California public entities are seeking to understand the process that precedes a Chapter 9 filing and how to plan for a possible filing.

On May 25, 2012, Judge Allan L. Gropper of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York approved a motion to compel the production of certain documents under section 1521 of the Bankruptcy Code.  In his decision, Judge Gropper also suggested that the broad discovery provisions of Bankruptcy Rule 2004 may apply to chapter 15 discovery requests, but stopped short of making such a ruling.  In re Millennium Global Emerging Credit Master Fund Limited, Case No. 11-13171 (ALG), (Bankr. S.D.N.Y May 25, 2012).

On June 13, 2012, Judge Harlin D. Hale of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas refused to enforce provisions of a Mexican plan of reorganization that purported to extinguish guarantees by the debtor’s non-debtor subsidiaries.  In refusing to enforce the non-debtor release, Judge Hale held both that the release of non-debtor guarantors was contrary to United States public policy and that the release did not merit enforcement under the specific criteria of chapter 15 for granting relief to a foreign debtor.

The recent chapter 11 case of the storied New York law firm, Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, will raise a host of issues attendant to the dissolution of a modern day “big law” firm partnership.  Chief among these issues is likely to be whether the profits earned by former Dewey partners in completing Dewey’s open client matters belong to Dewey or the former Dewey partners.

On May 30, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that a bankruptcy court in one federal district lacks jurisdiction to determine whether a debt was discharged under a chapter 11 plan confirmation order issued by a bankruptcy court in another federal district.  Alderwoods Group, Inc. v. Garcia, 1:10-cv-20509-KMM, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10891 (11th Cir. May 30, 2012).  The decision makes it clear that a debtor must seek enforcement of its discharge order in the same federal court that granted the discharge in the first place.

On May 4, 2012 Judge Kevin J. Carey of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held that a claim against a debtor’s estate, transferred to a third party, is subject to the same infirmities as in the hands of the original holder of the claim.  In re KB Toys, Inc., — B.R. —-, 2012 WL 1570755, at *11 (Bankr. D. Del. 2012).  Judge Carey’s opinion diverged from, and criticized, the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Enron Corp. v. Springfield Assocs., L.L.C., 379 B.R. 425 (S.D.N.Y.

On May 29, 2012, the Supreme Court ruled 8-0 that a debtor could not confirm a plan over a secured creditor’s objection if the plan provided for the sale of the secured creditor’s collateral free and clear of liens, but did not provide the secured creditor with the option of credit-bidding at the sale. RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, No. 11-166, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 3944 (U.S. May 29, 2012). Such a plan, the Supreme Court held, does not meet the statutory requirements for “fair and equitable” treatment of an objecting secured class in 11 U.S.C. § 1129(b)(2)(A).

The recent bankruptcy case of Hostess has centered on Hostess’s attempts to reject collective bargaining agreements with its unions.  Hostess has emphasized that realigning labor costs is essential to its ability to successfully reorganize.  Section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code sets forth detailed requirements that a debtor must meet to modify or reject CBAs.  Bankruptcy courts’ ultimate decision to authorize rejection of a CBA frequently turns on a detailed examination of the evidence presented in support of the rejection motion.

The ability to discharge debts (i.e., liability on a claim) is essential to the fundamental goal of chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code – providing debtors with a fresh start by resolving all claims that arose before confirmation of the debtor’s plan of reorganization.  In determining the universe of debts eligible for discharge, Third Circuit courts labored for many years underAvellino v. M. Frenville Co. (In re M. Frenville Co.), 744 F.2d 332 (3d Cir.