This past November, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas sided with the majority of circuit courts when it held (i) that bankruptcy courts may apply Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 to class proofs of claim and administrative proofs of claim, and (ii) that a putative representative may file a conditional claim on behalf of a putative class that may later be certified.

The Bankruptcy Protector

Chapter 11 debtors operate under various levels of uncertainty. Often a company is dependent upon others to provide financing or close transactions necessary for the company’s survival. Such was the case of Eclipse Aviation, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in November 2008, with an (apparent) agreement to sell itself to its largest shareholder.

In a bout of déjà vu, the Supreme Court decided to hear California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities, Inc., et al. to settle the issue of whether the Securities Act of 1933’s (the “Securities Act”) three-year statute of repose is subject to tolling.[1] On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court made the following noteworthy and defendant-friendly holdings:

On May 1, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would review the Seventh Circuit’s decision in FTI Consulting, Inc. v. Merit Management Group, LP, 830 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2016) (“Merit”), which addressed the scope of the safe harbor found in Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code for settlement payments.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a mortgage loan borrower’s federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and related state law claims because the defendant mortgagee was not a “debt collector” as defined by the FDCPA.

In so ruling, the Court also rejected the borrower’s allegations that the monthly statements the mortgagee sent to the borrower after her bankruptcy discharge were impermissible implied assertions of a right to collect against her personally.

Introduction

The Supreme Court will consider these key questions next term in Czyzewski v Jevic Holding Corp:(1)

“Just when I thought I was out…they pull me back in.” That must be what GM’s executives (and counsel) were thinking when the Second Circuit handed down its recent decision overturning portions of the 2015 Bankruptcy Court decision that could have immunized the “New GM” from “Old GM’s” liability related to the ignition switch recall of 2014. The decision also calls into question the 2009 sale order as a potential violation of the victims’ due process rights.

An Eleventh Circuit panel recently vacated two district court orders after sending the parties to mediation, and after the parties’ conditioned settlement on vacatur of the orders. In Hartford Casualty Insurance Company v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company, after being ordered to mediation a second time by the appellate panel, the parties reached a settlement contingent on the district court’s vacating its orders on summary judgment and attorney’s fees.

On June 22, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware allowed a putative creditor class to file a class proof of claim in the In re Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc., et al., bankruptcy proceedings.[1]  In granting

On June 28, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to a Third Circuit-affirmed settlement and dismissal of the chapter 11 cases of Jevic Transportation, Inc. (“Jevic”) and certain of its affiliates. SeeOfficial Comm. of Unsecured Creditors v. CIT Grp./Bus. Credit Inc. (In re Jevic Holding Corp.), 787 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 2015), cert. grantedCzyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., No. 15-649, 2016 WL 3496769 (U.S. 2016).