A parochial elementary school and high school were recently sued in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York by Robert Geltzer, a bankruptcy trustee.  The suits, Geltzer v. Our Lady of Mt. Carmel-St. Benedicta School and Geltzer v. Xavarian High School, were brought in an effort to recover tuition payments made by a student’s parents who had later filed for bankruptcy. (Kelley Drye & Warren LLP represented Our Lady of Mt. Carmel-St.

CASE SNAPSHOT

In Michigan State Housing Development Authority v. Lehman Brothers Derivatives Products, Inc., et al. (In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., et al.) (Michigan State Housing), 1 the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the Bankruptcy Court) recently held that a provision in a swap agreement that shifted the methodology for calculating termination amounts upon the debtor counterparty’s bankruptcy was enforceable under the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor for liquidating, terminating and accelerating swap agreements.

Many loan agreements include clauses that permit borrowers to repay debt prior to the maturity date only if they make additional payments that are typically referred to as “prepayment premiums” or “make-whole payments.” The purpose of such prepayment premiums is to compensate lenders for what would otherwise be the loss of their bargained-for yields for the scheduled lives of their loans.

Nearly 30 years after enactment of the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984 and establishment of the current bankruptcy court structure, courts are still struggling to understand the bounds of a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction and power. Unfortunately for one recent appellant, a bankruptcy court’s power to enter punitive damages is not as great as it had hoped.

Probably the most significant bankruptcy law development in the past several years has been the narrowing of bankruptcy courts’ constitutional authority to enter final judgments.  See Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct.

In Durango-Georgia Paper Co. v. H. G. Estate, LLC, Case No. 11-15079 (decided January 7, 2014), the Eleventh Circuit addressed what it defined as a question of first impression: “whether under ERISA the trustee of a corporation that is a contributing sponsor and is in bankruptcy can maintain an action for the benefit of the bankruptcy estate and the estate’s unsecured creditors against the corporation’s former owner … for liabilities arising from the termination of a pension plan.” Opinion, p. 5. The Court held that the answer is “no.”

A recent decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has added an additional eligibility requirement for the filing of Chapter 15 cases. In Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), ___ F.3d ___, 2013 WL 6482499 (2d Cir.

When does a plaintiff’s bankruptcy bar a later discrimination claim? The Ninth Circuit recently framed the issue with two cases:

A recent New York trial court decision upheld a common full recourse trigger in a non recourse carve-out guaranty by holding that a voluntary bankruptcy filing by the borrower enabled the lender to seek immediate full repayment from the guarantor under the terms of the guaranty, even though the loan was subject to New York State's "one action rule" and the lender had pursued a foreclosure action against the property securing the loan.