Appeals from bankruptcy court orders continue to play a key role in bankruptcy practice. The relevant sections of the Judicial Code and the Federal Bankruptcy Rules arguably cover all the relevant issues in a straightforward manner. Recent cases, however, show that neither Congress nor the Rules Committees could ever address the myriad issues raised by imaginative lawyers. The appellate courts continue to wrestle with standing, jurisdiction, mootness, excusable neglect, and finality, among other things.

Highlights

On Jan. 10, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear three cases, which present the following three questions:

Does a motion for relief from a final judgment that is premised on a legal error fall under Rule 60(b)(1) or 60(b)(6)?

Does the Constitution's provision for “uniform” bankruptcy laws permit Congress to implement Chapter 11 fee increases in different ways in different regions of the country?

On January 3, 2022, Reuters reports, under the heading “Judge orders mediation for Purdue, Sacklers over opioid settlement,” as follows:

The Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “SDNY”) has been a longstanding epicenter of Chapter 11 filings. Historically seen as one of the more pro-debtor forums in the country, large companies often filed in the SDNY to take advantage of that stance. Some debtors appear to have attempted to direct their cases to specific judges within the district who were seen as particularly pro-debtor. One recent example was the bankruptcy filing by OxyContin producer, Purdue Pharma.

Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3002.1 was implemented to protect debtors from unanticipated deficiencies in residential mortgage payments following a chapter 13 discharge, and the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Puerto Rico’s recent opinion in In re Feliciano Figueroa[1] illustrates how detrimental the rule can be to inattentive mortgage holders.

In Jackson v. Le Centre on Fourth, LLC (In re Le Centre on Fourth, LLC), 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 33845 (11th Cir. Nov. 15, 2021), the Eleventh Circuit rejected creditors’ due process challenge to the release afforded to the debtor’s affiliates in a confirmed Chapter 11 plan.

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.

Despite the Supreme Court’s rejection of a structured dismissal in 2017,[1] there is a growing trend of bankruptcy courts approving structured dismissals of chapter 11 cases following a successful sale of a debtor’s assets under Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code.

As cross-border restructurings proliferate, especially in the wake of the global COVID-19 pandemic, companies with global assets and operations may utilize chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) to facilitate cooperation between U.S. and foreign bankruptcy courts and protect assets located in the U.S. One doctrine central to relief under chapter 15 is the principle of comity, which refers to the recognition one nation’s legal system accords to another nation’s judicial proceedings. In chapter 15 proceedings, U.S.

I. Introduction