Is electricity goods or services? That seemingly simple yet confounding question is illustrated by three recent bankruptcy cases (all of which consider whether an electricity provider is entitled to an administrative expense priority under Bankruptcy Code Section 503(b)(9) for “the value of goods received by the debtor” in the ordinary course within 20 days prior to the automatic stay):
Introduction
On August 28, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit[1] delivered a stern admonition about the risk of failing to appeal when it ruled that a union that had not filed a notice of appeal could not benefit from a successful appeal by another union in the same matter.
Mitigating Risk in African Investments
Lewis Bros. Bakeries, Inc. v. Interstate Brands Corp. (In re Interstate Bakeries Corp.)
On June 17, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals1 vacated a District Court’s dismissal order and resuscitated a bankruptcy appeal brought by a group of litigation creditors seeking recourse against the debtors post-confirmation.2 The Third Circuit opinion is an important reminder to both debtors and creditors that the doctrine of “equitable mootness” has limits and that confirmation of a plan does not preclude review of post-confirmation actions inconsistent with obligations in the plan.
The end of a legal saga
Introduction
Procedural background
Facts
Statute of limitations
Actual fraudulent conveyance
Settlement
Comment
Voss v. Knotts et al.
In a concise, unpublished decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a copyright suit on the grounds that the plaintiff lacked standing. Voss v. Knotts et al., Case No. 12-56168 (9th Cir., Apr. 8, 2014) (per curiam).