On Oct. 28, 2020, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas delivered a key ruling affecting: (1) purchase and sale agreements for produced gas and severed minerals; and (2) agreements with “exclusive remedy” provisions and liquidated damage clauses. See Mem. Op., In re: Chesapeake Energy Corp., et al., Cause No. 20-33233 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2020).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently issued an opinion that calls into question the long-held Barton doctrine following the dismissal of a bankruptcy case and thus the jurisdiction of that court. In Tufts v. Hay, No. 19-11496 --- F.3d ----, 2020 WL 6144563 (11th Cir. Oct. 20, 2020), the court considered where a litigant may bring suit against counsel appointed by a bankruptcy court after the bankruptcy case was dismissed.

As a result of the economic fallout of COVID-19, more bankruptcies are on the horizon, especially as government aid programs expire and involuntary or voluntary moratoriums on creditor action come to an end. [1] Creditors should be aware and prepared to avoid potential claims for alleged violation of the discharge injunction under the Bankruptcy Code and related orders.

With the football transfer window having closed on another round of multimillion-pound transfers, the perception continues that football is a sport awash with cash. However, as football plays on behind closed doors, one need not look too far beneath the surface to uncover clubs across the country struggling to cope with the financial impact of COVID-19.

For years, small business debtors have struggled with the intricacies of Chapter 11, the debt limitations of Chapter 13 and Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidations. Stringent requirements and procedural hurdles often made restructuring a prohibitively expensive option for many small business debtors. Congress attempted to address these issues with H.R. 3311, the Small Business Reorganization Act (the “SBRA”). The SBRA, which was signed into law on August 23, 2019, creates a new subchapter, Subchapter V, of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Bankruptcy experts are applauding a proposed change to the Paycheck Protection Program that will allow small business debtors to access loans under federal COVID-19 relief packages, correcting what they say was a mistake in early versions of the aid program that left bankrupt companies without a valuable tool for surviving the pandemic.

On June 22, U.S. Circuit Judge Judge Jerry Smith issued a short, three-page opinion in the case Hidalgo County Emergency Service Foundation v. Carranza that appeared, at first blush, to be a death blow to many debtors' ability to obtain Paycheck Protection Program, or PPP, loans under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security, or CARES, Act.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has dealt a blow to debtors seeking Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”). In a decision entered on Monday, June 22, Judge Jerry Smith issued a short, three-page opinion in the case Hidalgo County Emergency Service Foundation v. Jovita Carranza (In re Hidalgo County Emergency Service Foundation) that could have long-lasting ramifications for many debtors, both in and outside of the Fifth Circuit.

On June 1, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit issued Isaiah v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., a precedential opinion that draws sharp limits on court-appointed receivers’ ability to bring claims against financial institutions that provided banking services to customers later discovered to be running a Ponzi scheme.

In Lane v. Bank of New York Mellon (In re Lane), No. 18-60059, 2020 WL 2832270 (9th Cir. June 1, 2020), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was asked to decide whether a bankruptcy court may void a lien under section 506(d) of the Bankruptcy Code when a claim relating to the lien is disallowed because the creditor who filed the proof of claim did not prove that it was the person entitled to enforce the debt the lien secures. Employing a narrow reading of section 506(d), the Ninth Circuit answered the question in the negative.