On February 28, 2019, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas issued an opinion in In re TM Village, Ltd. (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2019), holding that an unintentional, duplicate obligation remaining under a contract can render the contract executory, even if perhaps in contravention of the plain language of the contract.

The initial stage of a Chapter 11 filing is the most crucial and debtors must be ready for the tactics of aggressive creditors and stakeholders jockeying for priority in the restructuring proceedings. As part of this phase, “first day motions” are typically filed on the first day of a case. These motions are to obtain permission to take certain actions necessary to maintain the debtor’s business operations that cannot be taken unless the court first issues an order authorizing the debtor to take the actions.

Ruling from the bench on April 4, Bankruptcy Judge Alan Koschik of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied approval of a disclosure statement proposed by FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. because the plan it described was “patently unconfirmable.”[1]

Addressing unknown future claims in a chapter 11 bankruptcy involves two competing concerns: (a) providing a debtor with a fresh start and (b) providing an unwitting claimant with due process. These competing concerns clash when a debtor seeks to confirm its plan of reorganization, which is intended to provide remedies to all the debtor’s creditors and provide the debtor with a discharge of all pre-confirmation liabilities.

On February 25, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision holding that a trustee is not barred by either the presumption against extraterritoriality or by international comity principles from recovering property from a foreign subsequent transferee that received the property from a foreign initial transferee.

Last week, a Ninth Circuit panel held that plaintiffs in five related cases lacked standing to pursue their FCRA claims. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit held that the allegation that a credit report contained misleading information, absent any indication that a consumer tried to engage in or was imminently planning to engage in any transactions for which the alleged misstatements in the credit reports made or would make any material difference, does not constitute a concrete injury.

The Bottom Line

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York entered a decision confirming the applicability of the Court’s bar date order as it relates to a pension fund’s claim for withdrawal liability filed after the bar date, despite the fact that the withdrawal occurred after the deadline for filing proofs of claim.

What Happened?

HIGHLIGHTS:

The Bottom Line

In a prior blog post, “Making Sense of The Circuit Split on the Enforcement of Make-Whole Provisions in Bankruptcy,” we discussed the circuit split on the enforcement of a make-whole premium triggered by a bankruptcy petition. Shortly after that post was published, the U.S.