In an appeal certified directly from the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Court”) to the Court of Appeals, the Third Circuit issued a ruling upholding Judge Kevin Gross’s decision that a chapter 11 debtor-employer may reject the continuing terms and conditions of a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) under 11 U.S.C. § 1113, despite that the CBA expired post-petition.
The Bankruptcy Court’s Decision
Editor’s Note: Our good London colleague Ed Marlow recently published this as a Bryan Cave client advisory.
1 PGDOCS\6505199.2 2015 Georgia Corporation and Business Organization Case Law Developments Michael P. Carey Bryan Cave LLP Fourteenth Floor 1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30309 (404) 572-6600 March 22, 2016 This paper is not intended as legal advice for any specific person or circumstance, but rather a general treatment of the topics discussed. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author only and not Bryan Cave LLP. The author would like to thank Tom Richey for his continued support, advice and assistance with this paper.
Challenges, Risks and New Developments in the Distressed Oil & Gas Industry MARK A. PLATT, Partner 214 932 6433 | [email protected] Dallas, TX JOHN H. THOMPSON, Partner 202 857 2474 | [email protected] Washington, DC The authors thank the following colleagues for their assistance with this material: Courtney A.
Today, the Second Circuit reissued the latest in a line of cases adopting an expansive reading of the safe harbor under Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code. In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litig., Case 13-3992, Doc. 356-1 (2d Cir. Mar. 29, 2016). (This opinion was originally issued on March 24 and withdrawn on March 28. The opinion released today contains minor, non-substantive alterations to the text on pages 8, 22, 26, and 40. In all other respects, it is identical to the opinion withdrawn last week).
On April 1, a bevy of dollar amounts set forth in the Bankruptcy Code will change. Some of these are quite important to substantive relief, and others are quite important to making sure you don’t look bad in front of the client or your favorite (least favorite?) judge. We have Section 104 of the Bankruptcy Code to thank for this malpractice-inducing enterprise, which we enjoy every three years. See 11 U.S.C. § 104 (a) (“On April 1, 1998, and at each 3-year interval ending on April 1 thereafter, each dollar amount in effect under sections . . . shall be adjusted . . . .”).
In a case of first impression, the Seventh Circuit recently issued an opinion that may cause landlords and their advisors to re-evaluate the consequences of terminating a financially distressed commercial tenant’s lease prior to bankruptcy. Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Great Lakes Quick Lube LP v. T.D. Investments I, LLP (In re Great Lakes Quick Lube LP), --- F.3d ---, 2016 WL 930298 (7th Cir. Mar. 11, 2016) (Posner, J.).
Editor’s Note: Here at The Bankruptcy Cave, we love insolvency stuff; we eat it for breakfast and dream about it at night. (We are not kidding.) Sometimes that includes credit-related litigation, and so we keep our pre-trial, trial, and appellate skills honed. To that end, here is a very helpful cheat sheet we prepared and which we bring with us to every deposition, just in case. (Your author Leah even got to enjoy a no-show deposition in Chicago last year; she created a perfect record using the below.)
Including an unsecured creditor in an agreed payments waterfall does not by itself confer on that unsecured creditor the benefit of a mortgagee’s usual duties on enforcement of security, or a direct claim against the sale proceeds.
You may recall the holding and analysis of ASARCO [1]/ from Jay’s previous post, here.