Rehabilitating a debtor’s business and maximizing the value of its estate for the benefit of its various stakeholders through the confirmation of a chapter 11 plan is the ultimate goal in most chapter 11 cases. Achievement of that goal, however, typically requires resolution of disagreements among various parties in interest regarding the composition of the chapter 11 plan and the form and manner of the distributions to be provided thereunder.

The devastating consequences of an enduring global recession for businesses and individuals alike have been writ large in headlines worldwide, as governments around the globe scramble to implement assistance programs designed to jumpstart stalled economies. Less visible amid the carnage wrought among the financial institutions, automakers, airlines, retailers, newspapers, homebuilders, homeowners, and suddenly laid-off workers is the plight of the nation's cities, towns, and other municipalities.

Amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Rules”) became effective on December 1, 2007, after having been approved by the U.S. Supreme Court in April and transmitted to Congress in June. These amendments, which apply to cases already pending on December 1, 2007 as well as cases filed thereafter, make some significant changes that will directly impact debtors, creditors and other stakeholders.

The implementation of restrictions on stock and/or claims trading has become almost routine in large chapter 11 cases involving public companies on the basis that such restrictions are vital to prevent forfeiture of favorable tax attributes that can be triggered by a change in control. Continued reliance on stock trading injunctions as a means of preserving net operating loss carry forwards, however, may be problematic, after the controversial ruling handed down in 2005 by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in In re UAL Corp.

Commercial landlords hailed as a significant victory the enactment in 2005 of a 210-day “drop dead” period after which a lease of nonresidential real property with respect to which the debtor is the lessee is deemed rejected unless, prior to the expiration of the period, a chapter 11 debtor in possession (“DIP”) or bankruptcy trustee assumes or rejects the lease.

The ability of a trustee or chapter 11 debtor in possession (“DIP”) to sell bankruptcy estate assets “free and clear” of competing interests in the property has long been recognized as one of the most important advantages of a bankruptcy filing as a vehicle for restructuring a debtor’s balance sheet and generating value. Still, section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code, which delineates the circumstances under which an asset can be sold free and clear of “any interest in such property,” has generated a fair amount of controversy.

In a victory for secured creditors, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently held inRiver Road Hotel Partners, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank (In re River Road Hotel Partners, LLC), 2011 WL 2547615 (7th Cir. June 28, 2011), that a dissenting class of secured lenders cannot be deprived of the right to credit-bid its claims under a chapter 11 plan that proposes an auction sale of the lenders’ collateral free and clear of liens.

In a recent decision, Judge Mary F. Walrath of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware greatly limited debtors’ ability to release parties under a chapter 11 plan in the bankruptcy cases of Washington Mutual, Inc. (“WMI”), and its debtor affiliates (together with WMI, the “Debtors”). In In re Washington Mutual, Inc., Judge Walrath approved a global settlement agreement (the “Global Settlement”) reached by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as receiver for Washington Mutual Bank (“WaMu Bank”); JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

One of the key protections afforded to secured creditors under the Bankruptcy Code is the right of a holder of a secured claim to credit bid the allowed amount of its claim as part of a sale process under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. Specifically, section 363(k) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that:

Lawmakers’ efforts to overhaul the nation’s bankruptcy laws two years ago as part of the sweeping reforms implemented by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (“BAPCPA ”) failed to resolve a number of important business bankruptcy issues that have been and continue to be the subject of protracted debate among the bankruptcy and appellate courts.