A fundamental tenet of chapter 11 bankruptcies is the absolute priority rule. Initially a judge-created doctrine, the absolute priority rule was partially codified in section 1129(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the Bankruptcy Code. Under section 1129, plans must be “fair and equitable” in order to be confirmed.

The Southern District of West Virginia recently held that the reporting of an account being paid through a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan as having an outstanding balance or past due payments does not violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

On July 19, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals entered a decision upholding the results of a foreclosure sale against a debtor’s allegation that the sale was a preference because the bankruptcy estate could have sold the property for a higher price. Veltre v. Fifth Third Bank (In re Veltre), Case No. 17-2889 (3d Cir. July 19, 2018).

The Bankruptcy Code’s cramdown provisions are a powerful tool for debtors in the plan confirmation process. Pursuant to section 1129(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Code, a plan may be confirmed if, among other things, “at least one class of claims that is impaired under the plan has accepted the plan.” Once there is an impaired accepting class, and assuming certain requirements are met, the plan may then be “crammed down” on all other classes of impaired creditors that reject the plan and those creditors will be bound by the terms of a plan they rejected.

Weird things happen in bankruptcy court. All you high-falutin Chapter 11 jokers out there, cruise down to the bankruptcy motions calendar one day.

One might assume that an individual debtor who makes false statements to a creditor respecting his future ability and willingness to pay a debt could not file for bankruptcy and then discharge any associated debts—especially where the creditor relied on the debtor’s statements to its detriment. As the United States Supreme Court recently decided, however, a debtor may do just that if his false statements respecting his financial condition are not made in writing.

The Supreme Court held that a statement about a single asset can be a “statement respecting the debtor’s financial condition” for purposes of determining the application of the exception to discharge set forth in Section 523(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code. Lamar, Archer & Cofrin LLP v. Appling, 2018 WL 2465174 (June 4, 2018).

On May 25, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the “Court”) affirmed a district court’s affirmance of a bankruptcy court’s decision in In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corp. that permitted a debtor to reject a midstream gathering agreement as an “executory contract.”1 The Court’s decision, which is the first Court of Appeals to address the rejection of a midstream gathering agreement, firmly establishes a debtor’s right to do so under certain circumstances.

BACKGROUND

Banks regularly enter into commercial relationships with their customers such as opening new depository accounts.  These relationships are often contractual in nature and seem relatively straightforward until an unexpected incident occurs that causes the relationship to unravel. What then are the duties owed by each party to each another?  The default rule seems to be that the terms and conditions that the parties agreed to at first govern the parties’ actions throughout their banking relationship.

In December 2017, Congress passed and President Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Job Act of 2017 (TCJA). Effective as of Jan. 1, 2018, the TCJA is a wide-ranging change to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Tax Code) affecting individual, corporate, and international taxation.

Lost amongst the many commentaries are two changes that have a negative impact on business debtors under the Bankruptcy Code: (1) reduction of the corporate tax rates and (2) elimination of the ability to carry back net operating losses.