In nearly every bankruptcy proceeding there is some constituency that ends up having its claim or interest impaired. Not surprisingly, therefore, these same constituencies would like to avoid that outcome by restricting the debtor’s ability to commence bankruptcy in the first place.

View original on Law360: https://www.law360.com/articles/1173110/the-upside-of-the-fastest-chapter-11-confirmation-ever

Bombart v. The Family Center at Sunrise, LLC, 520 B.R. 300 (S.D. Fla. 2014) –

Kline v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. (In re Kline), 172 B.R. 98 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2012) –

In orders issued on January 25 and 28, 2019, FERC concluded that the Commission and the bankruptcy courts have concurrent jurisdiction to review and address the disposition of FERC-jurisdictional contracts sought to be rejected through bankruptcy and, therefore, a party to a FERC-jurisdictional wholesale power agreement must first obtain approval from both FERC and the bankruptcy court to modify the filed rate and reject the filed wholesale power contract, respectively. FERC made its determination in response to two separate petitions (“Petitions”) filed by NextEra Energy, Inc.

Great Plains Royalty Corp. v. Earl Schwartz Co. (In re Great Plains Royalty Corp.), 520 B.R. 292 (Bankr. D. N.D. 2014) –

Reynolds v. Rushton, 473 B.R. 436 (D. Utah 2012) –

The West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (“WVCCPA”) is a remedial statute designed to protect West Virginia consumers from improper debt collection. Only “consumers” have standing to file a lawsuit under the WVCCPA. The term “consumer” is defined as a natural person that owes a debt or allegedly owes a debt. But does a person still owe debt if that debt was discharged by a bankruptcy court? Although there is some conflicting case law in West Virginia, an answer is forming.

The purchaser of assets from one bankruptcy debtor objected to the plan of reorganization filed by a related bankruptcy debtor because the plan did not recognize the purchaser’s rights in a deep water well pursuant to a lease between the two debtors.  The bankruptcy court determined that the buyer did not acquire any rights to the well, the district court affirmed, and the buyer appealed to the 8thCircuit.

In Re Loucheschi LLC, 471 B.R. 777 (Bankr. D. Mass 2012) –

When a lender makes a loan that does not comply with usury laws it runs a risk that not only will interest and charges be disallowed, but also the entire loan may be declared void.  In cases where declaring a usurious loan void is discretionary, one might expect a bankruptcy court to be inclined to do so since it could benefit the bankruptcy estate.