One of the hallmarks of the U.S. bankruptcy system is ready access to information concerning any entity that files for bankruptcy protection. The integrity of that system is premised upon the presumption that not only creditors and other interested parties in a bankruptcy case, but also the public at large, should have the ability to examine any document filed with the bankruptcy court.

October 17, 2013, will mark the eighth anniversary of the enactment of chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code as part of the comprehensive U.S. bankruptcy-law reforms implemented in 2005. Chapter 15, which governs cross-border bankruptcy and insolvency cases, is patterned after the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (the “Model Law”), a framework of legal principles formulated by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (“UNCITRAL”) in 1997 to deal with the rapidly expanding volume of international insolvency cases.

You might think that a company in bankruptcy wouldn’t be able to give its CEO a multi-million-dollar severance payment. 

But just because a company is in bankruptcy doesn’t necessarily mean it doesn’t have any money – it just means it doesn’t have enough to pay all of its debts, or to function as a continuing concern.  The company may, in fact, have the means to make a rather generous severance payment – like the $20 million American Airlines is proposing to pay its CEO, Tom Horton, as the airline comes out of Chapter 11 and into a merger with US Airways. 

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York granted motions to dismiss involuntary Chapter 7 petitions filed against TPG Troy LLC and T3 Troy LLC (the Troy Entities). Petitioners filed numerous actions against the Troy Entities in the United States and Europe to recover money they alleged was owed in connection with the default of payment-in-kind and subordinated notes.

Under Arizona law, does a secured creditor need to file a deficiency action within 90 days after a trustee’s sale to preserve the unsecured portion of its claim in a bankruptcy case? Or is filing (or amending) a proof of claim sufficient? Two recent cases out of Arizona provide conflicting answers.

Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bullock v. BankChampaign, N.A., which addressed the circumstances in which a breach of fiduciary duty judgment can be discharged in bankruptcy proceedings.

A new Illinois law will close a loophole through which some mortgages could be subject to avoidance in bankruptcy.  The loophole, created by U.S. Bankruptcy Court’s (C.D. Illinois) 2012 In re Crane opinion, allowed a bankruptcy trustee to avoid a mortgage under 11 U.S.C. § 544(a)(3) unless it contained, among other provisions: 1) the amount owed, 2) the debt’s maturity date and 3) the underlying interest rate. 

I. Introduction

On April 22, 2013, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in In re School Specialty upheld the enforceability of a make-whole premium triggered by the pre-petition acceleration of a secured term loan.1 The decision re-affirms that bankruptcy courts will respect properly drafted make-whole premiums that pass muster under applicable state law.

In bankruptcy proceedings, is a class action superior to the claims administration process as a vehicle for resolving claims under the federal and New York State Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the “WARN Act”)?  In Schuman v. The Connaught Grp., Ltd. (In re The Connaught Grp., Ltd.), Case No. 12-01051, Slip Op. (Apr.

Affiliated Lender Provisions and Debt Buybacks - Unenforceability of Bankruptcy Voting Proxies Expose Flaws in “Market Standard” Provisions