In a prior post, we set forth the potential liability of employers for collection of debts owed by employees in violation of the bankruptcy stay. To protect themselves from such liability, employers that accrue claims against their employees in the ordinary course of business should implement written protocols designed in consultation with bankruptcy counsel.

Last week, our post “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” discussed a Texas bankruptcy court decision rejecting efforts by debtor Sam Wyly to claim as exempt a number of offshore private annuities.

The Supreme Court again will be addressing the powers of bankruptcy courts. At the end of the term, the Court granted certiorari in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp. to decide whether a bankruptcy court may authorize the distribution of settlement proceeds in a way that violates the statutory priority scheme in the Bankruptcy Code. No. 15-649, 2016 WL 3496769 (S. Ct. June 28, 2016). The Supreme Court is expected to address this fundamental bankruptcy issue sometime early next year.

Background

Parties to an appeal who condition a settlement on the vacating of the lower court’s judgment “may still [have] an appropriate remedy,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on July 12, 2016. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. App LEXIS 12813, *15 (11th Cir. July 12, 2016). Reversing the district court’s “narrow” refusal to vacate its judgment after the parties had settled, the Eleventh Circuit found that “exceptional circumstances” warranted the vacatur. Id., at *3, *14.

Second Circuit Court of Appeals Decision in GM Cases Casts a Shadow Over Whether Section 363 Sale Orders Insulate Buyers from Debtors’ Product Liability Claims.

Under Section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor or trustee can sell estate assets “free and clear of any interest” in such assets. This short, simple string of six words represents one of the most powerful tools in the bankruptcy professional’s arsenal.

The scope of the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor for certain financial contracts has been tested again, this time in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Louisiana. The question this time was whether an ipso facto provision continues to be safe harbored if enforcement of that provision is conditioned on other factors – in this case, the debtor’s failure to perform under the contract.

In 2009, General Motors (“Old GM”) commenced a chapter 11 case and sold the bulk of its business and assets to a new entity (“New GM”) “free and clear” of liabilities against New GM. Notwithstanding the “free and clear” language of the 2009 sale order (the “Sale Order”), a Second Circuit panel recently held that plaintiffs could assert claims against New GM over faulty ignition switches in cars manufactured by Old GM and recalled in early 2014.

In re Intervention Energy Holdings, LLC, Case No. 16-11247 (D. Del. June 3, 2016), the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware dealt with the issue of whether a Delaware LLC lacked authority to file a Chapter 11 petition under the Bankruptcy Code because the limited liability company agreement of the LLC in question required the consent of all members and one member did not consent to the filing.

This is the first of three follow-up blogs to our earlier publication Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors: General Overview. This blog explores ABC’s lack of statutory automatic stay and whether there is a functional and practical equivalent. The next blog will discuss whether a creditor may file a claim after the statutory 120-day deadline.