Add the Eight Circuit to a growing list of courts that have found that a plan of reorganization which proposes better treatment for creditors who have agreed to purchase any leftover securities in an offering (a “backstop agreement”) done pursuant to that plan does not violate the requirement that each claim within a class of creditors receive the same treatment under 11 U.S.C. § 1123(a)(4). In re: Peabody Energy Corp., --- F.3d --- (Docket No. 18-1302) (8th Cir. August 9, 2019).

The Peabody Plan

At a time when having groceries delivered to your front door is as easy as a couple of taps and swipes on your phone, it is tempting to rely exclusively on the Internet for solutions to all of our problems. However, convenience and adequacy do not always go hand-in-hand, especially when it comes to legal representation. Such is the case with UpRight Law, LLC, a “national consumer bankruptcy law firm.” UpRight relies heavily on non-lawyer “client consultants” who dispense legal advice to clients and help to farm out the cases to local attorneys.

In Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Old Cold LLC (In re Old Cold LLC), 879 F.3d 376 (1st Cir. 2018), the First Circuit held that a sale in possible violation of the Supreme Court’s Jevic decision does not allow an appellate court to examine the merits of the sale when the sale-approval order otherwise is statutorily moot under section 363(m).

Fourth Circuit Authorizes Partial Dirt for Debt Plan

The Bankruptcy Code requires that secured creditors realize the indubitable equivalent of their claims as a condition to confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization. In the case of Bate Land & Timber LLC, the Fourth Circuit addressed indubitable equivalence in the context of a partial dirt for debt plan where the debtor planned to covey several tracks of real property in partial satisfaction of its obligations to its secured creditor and pay the remaining balance owed in cash.

The Bankruptcy Protector

Back in September, the Bankruptcy Protector announced that was introducing a new periodic series: theJevic Files. As promised, we have published intermittent updates identifying cases where Jevic priority skipping issues are raised and adjudicated.

In this post, we attempt to provide a succinct summary of all cases decided post-Jevic.

How Courts Are Applying Jevic

Creditors should take note that the deadline for filing a proof of claim has changed in bankruptcy cases filed under chapter 7, chapter 12 or chapter 13. As of December 1, 2017, a proof of claim ordinarily must be filed not later than 70 days after the bankruptcy case is filed if the case is voluntarily filed under one of these chapters. The change in deadlines is one of many recent changes to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.

How realistic is it for creditors to anticipate receiving interest on their claims in bankruptcy? The answer depends on whether the claim is secured or unsecured, whether interest is claimed for the period before or after the bankruptcy filing, and whether the debtor is solvent or insolvent, to name just a few considerations.

A debtor cannot recover sanctions or attorneys’ fees under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k) when the debtor admits to having suffered no actual damages and the filing of a motion for sanctions was not necessary to remedy a stay violation.[1] Denying the debtor’s motion for sanctions, the U.S.

What role does business common sense play in the interpretation of commercial contracts? This issue was recently addressed by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in Rainy Sky S.A. v. Kookmin Bank. The answer: “where a term of a contract is open to more than one interpretation, it is generally appropriate to adopt the interpretation which is most consistent with business common sense”. Since there is currently some uncertainty in Canada on the point, Rainy Sky is an important case to consider.

Decision

The highest profile duty to consult case this past year was the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Coldwater First Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FCA 34, relating to the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project (TMX Project). This was a judicial review of the federal Cabinet’s decision to approve the TMX Project for the second time subject to numerous conditions. The TMX Project involves the twinning and expansion of an existing pipeline from Edmonton, Alberta to Burnaby, British Columbia.