The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware recently denied the debtors’ attempt to assume a software license agreement while simultaneously rejecting related agreements with the same vendor. In Huron Consulting Svcs., LLC v. Physiotherapy Holdings, Inc. (In re Physiotherapy Holdings, Inc.), Chief Judge Leonard P.

Prior to September 1, 2015, procedures in consumer chapter 13 bankruptcy cases varied greatly across the divisions of the Middle District of Florida, creating vastly different workflows for creditors and attorneys with cases pending in multiple divisions across the District. (The Middle District of Florida comprises four divisions, including Orlando, Tampa, Jacksonville and Fort Myers.) As part of the U.S.

In a bankruptcy case, the bankruptcy estate (through the Debtor or Trustee) is permitted to employ counsel and other professionals (e.g.

Courts almost always treat fraud claims as per se (automatic) violations of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1. Does that mean that fraudulent transfers of assets, likewise, automatically support recovery under section 75-1.1?

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an important preference decision on August 10, 2015.

What You Need to Know

Payments to creditors arising from a recent, single business transaction can be protected by the ordinary course of business defense.

C.W. Mining Company Case

The debtor C.W. Mining Company was failing. In an attempt to survive, it decided to try something new, specifically to increase coal production by converting its mining operations from continuous mining to a long wall system.

A Chapter 11 debtor’s reorganization plan purporting to cure a default under a pre-bankruptcy loan agreement must pay “the agreed-upon default rate interest,” consistent with “the underlying agreement” and the “applicable nonbankruptcy law,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on Aug. 31, 2015. In re Sagamore Partners, Ltd., 2015 WL 5091909, at *4 (11th Cir. Aug. 31, 2015).

Providing notice to creditors of actions that could affect their interests is one of a debtor’s most important responsibilities.  Absent proper notice, relief requested by a debtor that may be warranted could nonetheless be denied.  Indeed, the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure set out pages and pages of rules regarding the time periods, form, and content of notices that a debtor, among others, must follow.  As the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado recently reminded us in the 

There has been a relatively recent uptick in plaintiffs’ counsel filing putative class actions in multiple state and federal courts for alleged violations of a debtor’s bankruptcy discharge injunction based upon the debtor’s receipt of post-discharge mortgage-related communications. These claims assert putative class action challenges to post-discharge communications alleged to be attempts at personal collection of the discharged mortgage debt.

The Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently handed down a decision declining to grant a creditor’s motion to reopen a debtor’s chapter 7 case and vacate a discharge order. Although the legal predicates at issue in that case may not be relevant to all practitioners, the case itself serves as a valuable reminder about “best” practices and provides a number of teachable moments for attorneys of all ages and practice areas.

Background

All too often, after a debtor receives his or her discharge in bankruptcy and after the case has been closed, a creditor whose debt has been discharged does something which may appear to constitute an effort to collect that debt.  This may range from the sending of an informational account statement by the mortgagee on a home surrendered in the bankruptcy, filing a proof of claim in a subsequent bankruptcy case, to filing of a lawsuit to collect the discharged debt.