Since it was issued three years ago by the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, the Clear Channel decision (Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. Knupfer (In re PW, LLC), 391 B.R. 25 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 2008)) has been widely criticized as “an aberration in well-settled bankruptcy jurisprudence.” Before Clear Channel, conventional wisdom (and what most people perceived to be the law) supported the notion that a bankruptcy sale order that contained a good faith finding under Section 363(m) could not be disturbed on appeal.

In a decision that may have significant practical implications to the practice of bankruptcy law, the U.S. Supreme Court recently declared, on constitutional grounds, that a bankruptcy court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a debtor’s state law counterclaims, thus considerably limiting the ability of the bankruptcy court to fully and finally adjudicate claims in a bankruptcy case. Stern v. Marshall, No. 10-179 (June 23, 2011).

Delaware Court Addresses Important Revlon Duties in Cash/Stock Mergers

On February 11, 2011, in a decision that represents a significant victory for institutional lenders and other proponents of capital market financing, Judge Alan S. Gold of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the District Court) issued a 113 page opinion overturning a $480 million fraudulent transfer judgment entered by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida (the Bankruptcy Court) against the so-called “Transeastern Lenders” in the TOUSA, Inc. (TOUSA) chapter 11 bankruptcy cases.i