The Bottom Line

Read time – 2 minutes

On January 27, 2020, FERC petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (“Sixth Circuit”) for rehearing en banc of that court’s decision finding bankruptcy court-FERC concurrent jurisdiction over certain power purchase agreements. Notwithstanding such concurrent jurisdiction, the Sixth Circuit’s decision finds that the bankruptcy court’s concurrent jurisdiction is paramount, and that therefore, FERC-jurisdictional power purchase agreements are susceptible to rejection in bankruptcy.

A critical bankruptcy litigation issue has finally been resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court. Until recently, litigants had been faced with the dilemma of whether to immediately appeal a denial with prejudice of a request for stay relief or wait until the underlying matter had been fully adjudicated. Given the uncertainty, parties remained unsure if they risked losing the ability to challenge the denial of stay relief by a bankruptcy court if they waited to appeal. Now it is clear that they will. In Ritzen Group v. Jackson Masonry, 589 U.S.

Introduction

In February 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion that, at first blush, appeared to severely curtail the scope of the transferee protections provided by Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, the “safe harbor” provision that shields specified types of payments from a bankruptcy trustee’s avoidance powers, including transfers “made by or to (or for the benefit of)” a “financial institution” in connection with a “securities contract.” A recent decision from the Second Circuit breathes fresh life into the defense.

On January 14, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision resolving the question of whether a motion for relief from the automatic stay constitutes a discrete dispute within the bankruptcy that creates a basis for a final appealable ruling, or whether it simply is a controversy that is part of the broader Chapter 11 case, such that appeals would not need to be taken until the conclusion of the Chapter 11 case.

So you (allegedly) violated a bankruptcy court order. Whether the debtor alleges you violated the terms of a confirmed plan, failed to provide certain notices required by the bankruptcy rules, violated the discharge injunction, or any other court order, you may be wondering what potential redress the debtor may seek. Although many violations of bankruptcy court orders and rules do not provide for a private right of action, many debtors seek to have their rights vindicated (in the form of the greatest vindicator, cash) through an action for contempt.

Kilpatrick Townsend’s Paul Rosenblatt and David Posner, bankruptcy partners, and Marc Lieberstein, a brand licensing and franchise partner, recently published an article in the New York State Bar Association Intellectual Property Section Bright

In 2019, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the finality of an asset sale previously approved by the bankruptcy court, providing valuable precedent in support of this core aspect of Chapter 11 practice. Fulmer v. Fifth Third Equip. Fin. Co. et al. (In re Veg Liquidation, Inc.), 931 F.3d 730 (8th Cir. 2019)

In Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, 589 U.S. ___ (Jan. 14, 2020), the Supreme Court (the Court) agreed with the majority of circuit courts and unanimously held that an order unreservedly, that is, without prejudice or condition, adjudicating relief from the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) is final and any appeal must be filed within the 14 day period under Rule 8002.