If, like me, you have ever scratched your head in confusion while preparing your taxes and thought to yourself – “I can’t believe the IRS takes such an absurd position on xyz tax exemption I want to use – who comes up with these crazy positions?” – then you might take some pleasure in a recent opinion from Judge Gross of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware calling an argument made by the IRS “strained and a bit confusing.” You read that right.

When a dealership files for bankruptcy, a manufacturer will be faced with critical decisions regarding the proposed restructuring and the treatment of its dealer agreement. The bankruptcy code provides debtors with certain rights in order to maximize the recovery for creditors. Manufacturers must be cognizant of these rights in any dealer bankruptcy.

Citing historically low electricity prices and a challenging business environment for power generators, Chicago-based Exelon Corp. filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy protections for Exelon Generation Texas Power LLC (“EGTP”) — a merchant generation unit Exelon owns in Texas.  The unit will continue to own and operate the 1,265 MW Handley Generating Station in Fort Worth, Texas, in exchange for a $60 million payment to the lenders.

How realistic is it for creditors to anticipate receiving interest on their claims in bankruptcy? The answer depends on whether the claim is secured or unsecured, whether interest is claimed for the period before or after the bankruptcy filing, and whether the debtor is solvent or insolvent, to name just a few considerations.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument today inU.S. Bank National Association v. Village at Lakeridge (15-1509). At issue in the case is whether the appropriate standard of review for determining non-statutory insider status is the de novo standard of review applied by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 3rd, 7th and 10th Circuits, or the clearly erroneous standard of review adopted for the first time by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in Village at Lake Ridge.

Back in July of 2015, Curtis James Jackson, III, more commonly known as 50 Cent, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy relief in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut, a little over two months after he was ranked fourth in the list of wealthiest hip-hop artists by Forbes. Jackson’s filing came on the heels of a New York state court ruling against him for $5 million in favor of Lastonia Leviston (plus $2 million in punitive damages that were later awarded post-petition) for impermissibly posting a sex tape online.

In LVNV Funding, LLC v. Harling, 852 F.3d 367 (4th Cir. 2017), as amended (Apr. 6, 2017), the Fourth Circuit addressed whether claim objections filed after a Chapter 13 plan had been confirmed are barred by the res judicata effect of the confirmed plan. Here, LVNV Funding filed unsecured proofs of claim that it conceded were barred by the statute of limitations.

The Bankruptcy Protector

An Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (“UCC”) often plays an active role in larger, more complex business bankruptcy cases. But what right, if any, does a UCC have to intervene in a bankruptcy adversary proceeding? The First Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed this very issue in Assured Guaranty Corp., et al. v. The Financial Oversight and Management Board of Puerto Rico, et. al., 17-1831 (1st Cir. Sept. 22, 2017) (“Financial Oversight”) and ultimately held that a UCC does have such a right.

The Bankruptcy Protector

Chapter 11 debtors operate under various levels of uncertainty. Often a company is dependent upon others to provide financing or close transactions necessary for the company’s survival. Such was the case of Eclipse Aviation, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in November 2008, with an (apparent) agreement to sell itself to its largest shareholder.