Section 365(h) of the Bankruptcy Code provides special protection for tenants if a trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") rejects an unexpired lease under which the debtor was the lessor by giving the tenant the option of retaining possession of the leased premises. Although the provision clearly describes what rights a tenant has if it makes such an election, it does not unequivocally address the extent of the electing tenant's obligations under the rejected lease or any related agreements. The U.S.

The ability of a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") to obtain credit or financing during the course of a bankruptcy case is often crucial to the debtor's prospects for either maintaining operations pending the development of a confirmable plan of reorganization or facilitating an orderly liquidation designed to maximize asset values for the benefit of all stakeholders. In a chapter 11 case, financing (and/or cash infusions through recapitalization) also is often a key component of the reorganized debtor's ability to operate post-bankruptcy.

The ability of a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") to sell assets of the bankruptcy estate "free and clear" of "any interest" in the property asserted by a non-debtor is an important tool designed to maximize the value of the estate for the benefit of all stakeholders. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California recently examined whether such interests include "successor liability" claims that might otherwise be asserted against the purchaser of a debtor's assets. In In re Catalina Sea Ranch, LLC, 2020 WL 1900308 (Bankr. C.D. Cal.

Except for disastrous fires that sparked the largest bankruptcy filing of the year, liabilities arising from the opioid crisis, the fallout from price-fixing, and corporate restructuring shenanigans, economic, market, and leverage factors generally shaped the large corporate bankruptcy landscape in 2019. California electric utility PG&E Corp.

In Short

The Situation: A liquidator can reject a "double proof" for what is, in substance, the same debt as another accepted proof of debt.

The Question: When are liquidators justified in rejecting what could arguably be a double proof?

WHITE PAPER

April 2019

The EU Risk Reduction Package: The Countdown for Restructuring the MREL Base Has Just Begun

On September 21, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware affirmed a bankruptcy court's ruling that it had the constitutional authority to grant nonconsensual third-party releases in an order confirming the chapter 11 plan of laboratory testing company Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC ("Millennium"). SeeOpt-Out Lenders v. Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC (In re Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC), 2018 WL 4521941 (D. Del. Sept. 21, 2018).

Even if a U.S. court has jurisdiction over a lawsuit involving foreign litigants, the court may conclude that a foreign court is better suited to adjudicate the dispute because either: (i) it would be more convenient, fair, or efficient for the foreign court to do so (a doctrine referred to as "forum non conveniens"); or (ii) the U.S. court concludes that it should defer to the foreign court as a matter of international comity. Both of these doctrines were addressed in a ruling recently handed down by the U.S.

Since its enactment as part of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, section 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code has provided an important safety net for creditors selling goods to financially struggling companies that file for bankruptcy. The provision gives vendors an administrative expense priority claim for the value of goods "received by the debtor" during the 20-day period before the bankruptcy petition date. The U.S.

In Schoenmann v. Bank of the West (In re Tenderloin Health), 849 F.3d 1231 (9th Cir. 2017), a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently addressed as a matter of apparent first impression whether or not a bankruptcy court can consider hypothetical preference actions in analyzing whether a creditor-transferee in preference litigation received more than it would have received in a hypothetical chapter 7 liquidation, as required by section 547(b)(5) of the Bankruptcy Code.