In a decision rendered on June 6, 2022, Justice Sotomayor authored the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in the case Siegel v. Fitzgerald, holding that a statutory increase in United States Trustee’s fees violated the “uniformity” requirement of the Bankruptcy Clause set forth in Article I, § 7, cl. 4 of the United States Constitution, which empowers Congress to establish “uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.”1
On October 12, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court denied, without comment, a petition for a writ of certiorari in a case challenging the doctrine of equitable mootness. Equitable mootness has been described as a “narrow doctrine by which an appellate court deems it prudent for practical reasons to forbear deciding an appeal when to grant the relief requested will undermine the finality and reliability of consummated plans of reorganization.”1 By his petition, David Hargreaves—an unsecured noteholder of debtor Nuverra Environmental Solutions Inc.
2020年の初めに新型コロナウイルス感染症（COVID-19）パンデミックが広がり始めてから、その拡散を抑えるために全米の州知事が事業の閉鎖を命じる行政命令を出しました。多くの事業主が、事業閉鎖期間の賃料の支払義務から逃れるための救済手段を探ろうとして賃貸借契約書、特にその不可抗力(force majeure)条項を調べました。事業体やその弁護士は、今まで経験したことのない性質のパンデミックと相次ぐ事業閉鎖を目の当たりにしていますが、そのような重要事項の指針となる判例はわずかしかありませんでした。しかし、イリノイ州J.B.プリツカー知事がCOVID-19危機の対応策として、レストランに対して同施設で食事をする客に料理を出す(on-premises consumption)ことを禁じる行政命令を出した結果1、 Hitz Restaurant Group事件において、イリノイ州北部地区連邦破産裁判所は、近時、賃貸借契約書に含まれる不可抗力条項に基づき、テナント（賃借人）‐債務者の賃料支払義務は一部免除されると判示しました。
概要
新型コロナウイルス感染症（COVID-19）パンデミックが、引き続き世界経済に多大な被害を及ぼしています。そのような状況で、破産手続の申請により債務救済措置を講じる米国会社の数が増えていることにお気づきかもしれません。この数カ月のうちに破産手続の申請をした企業には、J.C. Penney、Hertz、Gold’s Gymをはじめとして、最近ではChesapeake EnergyやBriggs & Strattonなど、多種の産業セクターに属する会社が含まれています。米国では、2020年後半に、COVID-19による倒産・破産件数が急増する傾向があり、そのような傾向は2021年に入ってもさらに続くことを予測しているビジネス・アナリストもいます。 |
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
In any bankruptcy, there are inevitably winners and losers. The winners do not always do virtuous acts to win and the losers are not necessarily evil. Rather, dividing up a limited pie, the bankruptcy courts must leave some creditors short-changed. A good example is the recent 7th Circuit case involving a supplier and a lender. (hhgregg, Inc. et al. (Debtor). Whirlpool Corporation v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, and GACP Finance Co., LLC, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 18-3363, February 11, 2020) |
On December 12, 2019, the Third Circuit issued a decision in In re Odyssey Contracting Corp., finding a debtor-subcontractor had waived its right to appeal from a bankruptcy court’s order directing the prime contractor and the debtor-subcontractor to resolve an adversary proceeding in accordance with a stipulation entered into by the parties and approved by the bankruptcy court prior to trial. This ruling has implications for all parties litigating in the Third Circuit, as the Odyssey ruling makes clear that parties who enter into stipulated agreements that depend on
Secured creditors filing a UCC financing statement under Article 9 must include a description of the collateral. (UCC 9-502) UCC Article 9 adopts a “notice filing” system, under which the purpose of the filing is to provide notice of a security interest in the specified collateral. UCC Article 9 does not require a precise (e.g., serial number) description. Even so, there has been much litigation over the sufficiency of the collateral descriptions in UCC financing statements.
The District Court for the Southern District of New York has ruled that a trustee could not amend a complaint to add federal constructive fraudulent transfer claims because those claims were preempted by the safe harbor provision of the Bankruptcy Code.[1] The District Court found, under a plain language reading of the safe harbor provision, 11 U.S.C.
In May, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a much anticipated decision in Garvin v. Cook Investments NW, SPNWY, LLC, 922 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir.