On Dec. 7, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp, No. 15-659. (S. Ct. argued Dec.

Under Section 521(a)(2)(A) of the federal bankruptcy code, a debtor in a chapter 7 bankruptcy must file a statement within 30 days of the bankruptcy filing notifying the court, creditors and the trustee whether the debtor intends to retain or surrender property encumbered by a mortgage.  In its October, 2016 decision in the case of In re Failla, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in affirming rulings from the bankruptcy court and the federal district court, held that once a chapter 7 debtor elects to "surrender" mortgaged property, he is precluded from thereafter opposing

In Reichhold Holdings US, Inc., on August 24, 2016, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court ruled that a vendor's reclamation trumped a lender's lien on inventory, arising from a post-petition DIP loan (that was used to repay the prepetition loan).

Generally, reclamation claims are subject to existing liens on inventory. However, where a prior loan is paid, the underlying liens are extinguished, and the existing reclamation claim becomes the first "lien" on the inventory. Liens arising from a subsequent DIP loan are junior to the pre-existing reclamation claim.

Companies that sell goods or extend credit to customers expect to be paid. When customers become insolvent, or file for Chapter 11 protection, those expectations are no longer realistic. Yet, there are a number of "creditor remedies" that can be utilized to maximize recovery from the insolvent customer. This article addresses one such "remedy": a carve-out from the pre-petition secured lender.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has clarified the type of injury that must be alleged by a plaintiff suing under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). This decision, in Church v. Accretive Health, Inc., is the first from the Eleventh Circuit applying the United States Supreme Court’s recent holding in Spokeo v. Robins.

Certain North American based affiliates of Essar Steel Ltd (Mumbai) have today filed Chapter 11 and Chapter 15 petitions in Delaware. ESML Holdings Inc. and Essar Steel Minnesota LLC have filed Chapter 11 proceedings in Delaware. The following entities filed Chapter 15 petitions in Delaware: Essar Steel Algoma Inc. USA, Essar Steel Algoma Inc., Cannelton Iron Ore Company, Essar Steel Algoma (Alberta) ULC, Essar Tech Algoma Inc.

In Bankruptcy Code Section 363 sales of assets, there are winners and losers. 

Chapter 11 is known as a forum for reorganizing or selling a financially distressed business. If a Chapter 11 reorganization is not possible, a sale of assets may create investment opportunities for strategic buyers, investment banks, and private equity to take advantage of the “distress” normally associated with Chapter 11 to acquire assets at a discount, exemplifying Warren Buffet’s “value” buying.

Picture the scene: You have just received word that your customer has filed Chapter 11. You had followed my ad-vice (see article Reducing a Customer’s Accounts Receiva-ble in the Zone of Insolvency), and put the customer on a cash-before-delivery basis and demanded assurances of performance. You were successful in reducing the ac-counts receivable owed, and avoiding preference liability in doing so.

The customer, now a Chapter 11 debtor, calls and de-mands that you continue to ship, and resume credit terms.

Several of the Official Bankruptcy Forms will be replaced on December 1, 2015. For creditors, the most notable changes will be to two forms: the Proof of Claim form, Form 410, and the Mortgage Proof of Claim Attachment, Form 410A. These changes reflect an effort by the Bankruptcy Courts to elicit a clear and complete picture of what the debtor owes and how much must be paid to cure a pre-bankruptcy arrearage. Due to the Bankruptcy Court’s focus on clarity, creditors are well advised to closely follow the claim forms and accompanying instructions.

The Indiana Court of Appeals recently held that creditors must move for an in personam remedy in the original foreclosure judgment or forfeit their right to collect deficiency funds. In Elliott v. Dyck O’Neal, the bank foreclosed upon a borrower’s residence, and sought judgment against the borrowers for the full amount of the outstanding balance in the complaint. The motion for default judgment, and accompanying order, however, only sought an order in rem for the outstanding debt—omitting any mention of an in personam remedy.