Learning the interplay between state rules of judicial procedure and federal bankruptcy law can be a daunting undertaking, but the pitfalls of failing to do so can be severe. A recent example of the importance of being mindful of these issues is Hewett v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee, No. 2D15–1074, 2016 WL 3065014 (Fla. 2d DCA June 1, 2016) where the filing of a bankruptcy petition ultimately cost a foreclosure defendant his right to appeal a final judgment of foreclosure.

The Second DCA summarized the procedural posture of the case as follows:

Essentially all securitization structures utilize a bankruptcy remote entity, a/k/a special purpose entity (“SPE”), to reduce the lenders’ or investors’ exposure to a bankruptcy of the sponsor. A standard feature of SPEs is the appointment of an independent person (director, member, manager) to the body managing the SPEs. That independent person’s consent is required for “major decisions,” one of which is the filing of, or consenting to a bankruptcy of the SPE (hence the court’s reference to them as “blocking directors”).

Recently, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued an opinion in In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corp.¹ that permitted the debtor, Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation (“Sabine”) to reject certain gathering and condensation agreements as executory contracts under 11 U.S.C. § 365. Because the midstream service sector finances the construction of pipelines, the costs of which are recovered over the life of gathering agreements, the Court’s decision has the potential to lead to considerable upheaval in the energy sector.

You know, there’s never a dull moment when one reports on the regulatory states’ endless and so often fruitless and wrong-headed tinkering with the global economy. So now… let’s talk bail-in.

In March 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that a landlord may be liable to a debtor’s bankruptcy estate for the value of a lease the debtor terminated early, holding the termination may be an “avoidable transfer” under the Bankruptcy Code.¹ The opinion in Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors v. T.D. Invs. I, LLP (In re Great Lakes Quick Lube LP)² reversed the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling, and in doing so perhaps expanded the definition of a “transfer” under the Bankruptcy Code.

Background 

A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, In re Tribune Company Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation,¹ represents a significant victory for shareholders who may get cashed out in connection with a leveraged transaction that precedes a company bankruptcy.

SEC and FDIC Propose Dodd-Frank Broker-Dealer Resolution Rules

Two recent court decisions may affect an equity sponsor’s options when deciding whether and how to put money into - or take money out of - a portfolio company. The first may expand the scope of “inequitable conduct” that, in certain Chapter 11 settings, could lead a court to equitably subordinate a loan made by a sponsor to its portfolio company, placing the loan behind all of the company’s other debt in the payment queue. The second decision muddies the waters of precedent under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code on the issue of the avoidability of non-U.S.

In 2003, Congress passed the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (the "Act").¹ The Act authorized states to create health savings accounts ("HSAs") with taxpreferred treatment to encourage individuals with high-deductible health insurance plans to save for their healthcare expenses.² Recent data suggests that the popularity of HSA accounts is growing, with one study estimating that the number of HSA accounts rose to 13.8 million in 2014, which is a twenty-nine percent (29%) increase from 2013.

As you may know by now, many of the Official Forms for use in Bankruptcy Courts were replaced with revised, reformatted and renumbered forms that went into effect on December 1, 2015. The changes were made as part of a forms modernization effort that began in 2008 to improve the official bankruptcy forms and the interface between the forms and the courts’ case opening and electronic case management technology.