On April 29, 2014, Energy Future Holdings filed what it claims is a pre-packaged chapter 11 bankruptcy in Delaware. The bankruptcy, which ranks among the largest cases ever with over $36 billion in assets and nearly $50 billion in debt, is the product of an agreement with senior bondholders on the terms of a debt-for-equity swap.

Three months ago, the U.S. District Court in Delaware upheld the bankruptcy court’s decision in In re Fisker Auto. Holdings, Inc., which limited, for “cause,” the amount that the purchaser of a secured lender’s claim could credit bid in connection with an asset sale under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Finds Bankruptcy Court to be Proper Forum for Claim Objection Despite Forum Selection Clauses in Investor Agreements

The Southern District of New York recently reiterated the critical difference between creditor claims and equity interests in the bankruptcy context.  In a recent opinion arising out of the Arcapita Bank bankruptcy case, the Court was faced with an objection to a proof of claim filed by an investor, Captain Hani Alsohaibi, who characterized his right to recovery against the debtors as being based on a “corporate investment.”

In Lodge v. Kondaur Capital Corp., Case No. 13-10919 (decided May 8, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided an issue that it never previously addressed: whether a party could recover damages under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k) for emotional distress resulting from another party’s violation of the automatic stay in bankruptcy. In Lodge, the Court held that such damages were recoverable but could not be recovered in the particular circumstances of that case.

The District Court for the Southern District of New York recently issued an opinion in Davis v. Elliot Management Corp. (In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48102 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2014) that will have important implications for individual members of official creditor committees in future cases. 

On June 4, 2014, the New York Court of Appeals will hear arguments arising from the bankruptcies of two law firms—Thelen and Coudert Brothers—as to whether the former partners of the bankrupt law firms must turn over profits earned on billable-hour client matters they brought to their new firms.

A recent decision from an Oregon bankruptcy court provides a cautionary tale for lenders attempting to “bankruptcy proof” their borrowers. 

The inclusion of pre-bankruptcy waivers in “standard issue” credit documents has generated a host of litigation in bankruptcy cases about the enforceability of such provisions.

In In re Mississippi Valley Livestock, Inc., No. 13-1377 (7th Cir. Mar.

The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and Antitrust Law recently held hearings regarding certain provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, including the safe harbor from preference and fraudulent conveyance claims for “settlement payments.”