On April 26, 2011, the Supreme Court approved a number of amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. In particular, the Supreme Court amended Bankruptcy Rule 2019 to clarify the disclosure required of certain parties in interest in a chapter 9 or 11 bankruptcy case.1 These amendments were drafted by a panel of bankruptcy judges and restructuring experts and are intended to resolve a split in decisions concerning the proper application of the current Bankruptcy Rule 2019.

In a recent decision arising out of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case of Global Industrial Technologies, Inc. (GIT),1 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting en banc, held that insurance companies that had issued liability insurance policies to a manufacturer before its bankruptcy filing had standing to object to confirmation of the company’s Chapter 11 plan of reorganization, even though the plan had been designed to be “insurance neutral” with regard to the policies.

I recently wrote about a decision from a federal district court in Alabama that sidestepped the Eleventh Circuit’s Crawford^[1]decision by finding that the Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) were in irreconcilable conflict, and the FDCPA gave way to the Code on the question of whether the mere act of filing a proof of claim on a stale debt in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy violated the FDCPA.^[2]

In post-confirmation proceedings, bankruptcy courts maintain the ability to clarify a plan where silent or ambiguous, and interpret a plan to advance equitable considerations.  However, bankruptcy courts are not allowed to modify a plan outside the confines of section

On March 10, 2015, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama issued a memorandum decision in the case of Harrelson v. DSS, Inc. (No. 14-mc-03675), declining to withdraw the reference from the bankruptcy court and holding that the existence of an arbitration agreement and a class action waiver in that arbitration agreement did not require substantial consideration of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).

Facts

In a recent decision by the Second Circuit, Lucas v. Dynegy Inc. (In re Dynegy, Inc.), No. 13-2581 (2d. Cir. Oct.

A class of consumers suing the bankrupt Kangadis Food Inc. over its allegedly misleading olive oil purity claims is now suing the owners of the company in a separate class action aimed at holding them accountable.

On June 17, 2014, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Dallas granted recognition under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code of the bankruptcy proceeding in Japan of failed bitcoin exchange, Mt Gox. Mt. Gox shut down after claiming to lose over $500 million (at current values) of customers’ bitcoins, some of which were later located. Mt Gox sought chapter 15 protection in the United States to prevent U.S.

On June 18, 2014, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Dallas will consider whether to grant recognition to the insolvency case pending in Tokyo. Based on the pleadings filed last week, it is a virtual certainty that the court will enter an order granting recognition.

One deliberately ironic facet of the 2004 film Howard Hughes bio-pic The Aviator (the one with Leonardo DiCaprio) is the fact that the airlines fighting for world dominance in the 1940s were Howard Hughes’ TWA and Juan Trippe’s Pan Am.  By the time of the movie, of course, both famous airlines were gone.  Pan Am’s final descent into bankruptcy court ended in 1991.  Following its own troubles (and two bankruptcies in the 1990s), TWA was acquired by American Airlines in 2001.  But does the death of an airline mean an end to litigation?  Of course not.