In December 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held as a matter of first impression in Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), 737 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2013), that section 109(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, which requires a debtor “under this title” to have a domicile, a place of business, or property in the U.S., applies in cases under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code.

In 1994, Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code to, among other things, add section 1123(d), which provides that, if a chapter 11 plan proposes to “cure” a default under a contract, the cure amount must be determined in accordance with the underlying agreement and applicable nonbankruptcy law. Since then, a majority of courts have held that such a cure amount must include any default-rate interest required under either the contract or applicable nonbankruptcy law. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit endorses this view.

Since the development of the doctrine of equitable mootness nearly a quarter century ago, courts have struggled to apply it in a way that strikes the appropriate balance between the need to ensure the finality and certainty of a chapter 11 plan for stakeholders, on the one hand, and the need to exercise the court’s jurisdiction and honor the right to appellate review, on the other. In JPMCC 2007-C1 Grasslawn Lodging, LLC v. Transwest Resort Props. Inc. (In re Transwest Resort Props., Inc.), 2015 BL 302540 (9th Cir. Sept.

A ruling recently handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit may provide significant flexibility to debtors in that circuit who are implementing sales of substantially all of their assets. In In re LCI Holding Company, Inc., 2015 BL 295784 (3d Cir. Sept.

In Redmond v. Jenkins (In re Alternate Fuels, Inc.), 789 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir. 2015), a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld bankruptcy courts’ authority to recharacterize insider debt as equity. In so ruling, the court rejected an argument that recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent prevents bankruptcy courts from using section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code to recharacterize debt as equity. Nevertheless, after upholding the recharacterization doctrine, the Tenth Circuit panel split on the doctrine’s application.

Professionals retained in a bankruptcy case by a trustee, a chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP"), or an official committee may be awarded "reasonable compensation" for "actual, necessary services" performed on behalf of their clients under section 330 of the Bankruptcy Code.

A hornbook principle of U.S. bankruptcy jurisprudence is that valid liens pass through bankruptcy unaffected. This long-standing principle, however, is at odds with section 1141(c) of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides that, under certain circumstances, "the property dealt with by [a chapter 11] plan is free and clear of all claims and interests of creditors," except as otherwise provided in the plan or the order confirming the plan.

In Del. Trust Co. v. Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. LLC (In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.), 527 B.R. 178 (Bankr. D. Del. 2015), the bankruptcy court ruled that, even though a chapter 11 debtor repaid certain bonds prior to maturity, a "make-whole" premium was not payable under the plain terms of the bond indenture because automatic acceleration of the debt triggered by the debtor's chapter 11 filing was not a "voluntary" repayment.

Many companies that file for bankruptcy protection have liabilities that cannot be definitively quantified as of the bankruptcy petition date. Such “unmatured,” “contingent,” “unliquidated,” or “disputed” debts could arise from, among other things: (i) causes of action that are being litigated at the time of a bankruptcy filing but have not resulted in a judgment; or (ii) claims against the company that exist prior to a bankruptcy filing but have not been asserted against the company in litigation or otherwise, let alone liquidated, as of the petition date.

A “structured dismissal” of a chapter 11 case following a sale of substantially all of the debtor’s assets has become increasingly common as a way to minimize costs and maximize creditor recoveries. However, only a handful of rulings have been issued on the subject, perhaps because bankruptcy and appellate courts are unclear as to whether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes the remedy.