On Saturday, February 13, Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, passed away.  Although there has been no shortage of media coverage (and brouhaha regarding Justice Scalia’s successor and the process for appointing same), we at the Weil Bankruptcy Blog want to take a moment to pay our respects.  

Federal bankruptcy law can benefit debtors and creditors alike. Provisions such as the automatic stay and absolute priority ensure a streamlined proceeding, preserving the debtor’s scarce resources for business rehabilitation and creditor repayment.  The alternative, multiple state court debt enforcement actions, would waste the debtor’s time and money on litigation (as valuable as bankruptcy lawyers may be). 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held that a bankruptcy court clearly erred in its finding that a debtor proposed a Chapter 11 plan in good faith, when the secured mortgagee would be paid only in part and very slowly after 10 years with no obligation by the debtor to maintain the building and obtain insurance, while a second class would be paid in full in two payments of $1,200 each over 60 days.

In a decision with significant implications for investors and underwriters alike, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held that contribution claims arising from the purchase and sale of a security of an affiliate of the debtor can and should be subordinated under section 51

The bankruptcy process is often long and arduous for clients, whether debtor or creditor, and their counsel.  Bankruptcy courts feel the pain, too.  So, when we finally reach the glorious goal of plan confirmation, most revel in the conclusion of the plan process.  Though often considered anathema, appeals of plan confirmation orders are sometimes pursued.  Recognizing the public policy desire for finality in bankruptcy proceedings, the Eighth Circuit applies the “person-aggrieved” doctrine in determining whether an appellant has standing to appeal a plan confirmation or

(S.D. Ind. Feb. 3, 2016)

In April 2005, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention Consumer Protection Act (“BAPCPA”) was signed into law, representing the most extensive revisions to the bankruptcy code in 35 years. The BAPCPA was the product of more than a decade of legislative efforts. Its stated purpose was to curb perceived consumer abuse of the bankruptcy system. At the time of its enactment, many bankruptcy practitioners, judges and others questioned whether such a drastic change to the law was necessary and expressed concern about the impact the BAPCPA would have on consumers and the system as a whole.

When it comes to releases, plan proponents generally agree the broader the better.  But when plan proponents include far reaching and all-encompassing language in hopes of securing a release for every possible claim under the sun, they sometimes overlook the very claims for which they may actual want a release.  This was the case in a recent decision, 

Section 547(c)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code excepts from the trustee’s power to avoid preferential transfers any transaction in which the debtor transfers property to a creditor in the “ordinary course of business.” Exactly what constitutes “ordinary course of business,” however, is not a settled question of law. In Jubber v. SMC Electrical Products (In re C.W. Mining Co.), 798 F.3d 983 (10th Cir. 2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit considered whether a first-time transaction between a debtor and a creditor can satisfy the ordinary course exception.

A federal “secured tax claim takes priority over [a professional’s] claim to fees” in an aborted Chapter 11 case, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on Jan. 26, 2016. In re Anderson, 2016 WL 308590, at *1 (4th Cir. Jan. 26, 2016).