In its recent opinion in Raymond James & Associates Inc. v. Jalbert (In re German Pellets Louisiana LLC), 23-30040, 2024 WL 339101 (5th Cir. Jan. 30, 2024), the Fifth Circuit held that a confirmed bankruptcy plan enjoined a party from asserting certain indemnification counterclaims against a plan trustee because the party did not file a proof of claim.

Background

Whether a solar system is a “fixture” sounds like a mundane legal issue – but it has significant implications for the residential solar industry and for the financing of residential solar systems. If a system is regarded as a “fixture” of the house to which it is attached, then the enforceability and priority of the finance company’s lien on the system will be subject to applicable real estate law.

If your company is named in a new lawsuit or receives a EEOC charge, part of your review process should include checking to see if the filing complainant or plaintiff has a pending bankruptcy action. If so, the next step is to see if the claimant disclosed their lawsuit or administrative complaint in his or her bankruptcy petition. If not, you may have a successful estoppel argument.

For at least the past decade, federal bankruptcy courts have routinely prohibited cannabis businesses from seeking protection under federal bankruptcy law, regardless of whether a cannabis business is legally operating under state law.

The Director of the Justice Department’s U.S. Trustee Program (USTP), which oversees the administration of bankruptcy cases, is about to change for the first time in nearly 20 years. Clifford White will be stepping down from the role and consumer advocate Tara Twomey will be taking up the mantle.

On November 10, 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada (the "SCC") released its long-awaited decision in Peace River Hydro Partners v Petrowest Corp., 2022 SCC 41(“Peace River”), which addresses the interaction between insolvency law's single proceeding model and arbitration law’s emphasis on contractually bargained-for rights – an interaction often described as “a conflict of near polar extremes”.

As discussed in prior posts and articles (here, here and

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) in Re Harte Gold Corp.,^[1]issued its first published decision on the use of reverse vesting orders (“RVOs”) finding that the

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) recently held that merely freezing a debtor’s bank account holding funds that had been garnished by a judgment creditor did not violate the automatic stay. This decision was based on the United States Supreme Court’s ruling last year in City of Chicago v. Fulton, holding that retention of repossessed vehicles that were possessed before a bankruptcy was filed did not violate the automatic stay.

The automatic stay is a procedural tool in a bankruptcy case that effectively halts efforts by creditors to collect on a debtor’s outstanding obligations. As discussed in more detail in our prior post, immediately upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition, a “bankruptcy estate” is created, which includes virtually all assets of the debtor.