When a dealership files for bankruptcy, a manufacturer will be faced with critical decisions regarding the proposed restructuring and the treatment of its dealer agreement. The bankruptcy code provides debtors with certain rights in order to maximize the recovery for creditors. Manufacturers must be cognizant of these rights in any dealer bankruptcy.

When a condo owner in arrears on assessments declares bankruptcy, a condo association often expresses concern about the effect of the bankruptcy on its ability to collect pre- and post-bankruptcy assessments.

A recent decision by Bankruptcy Judge Stuart Bernstein, made in connection with plan confirmation in the SunEdison bankruptcy case, strikes down non-consensual third-party releases on a variety of bases. The decision analyzes issues regarding subject matter jurisdiction, the circumstances of deemed consent, and the applicable substantive requirements for a non-consensual release.

Under § 727(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code, a court shall not grant a debtor’s discharge if “the debtor has concealed, destroyed, mutilated, falsified, or failed to keep or preserve any recorded information, including books, documents, records, and papers, from which the debtor’s financial condition or business transactions might be ascertained, unless such act or failure to act was justified under all of the circumstances of the case.” To prevail under § 727(a)(3) an objecting party must establish that the debtor has failed to maintain or preserve records.

In Varela v. AE Liquidation, Inc. (In re AE Liquidation, Inc.), 866 F.3d 515 (3d Cir. 2017), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit became the sixth circuit court of appeals to rule that a "probability standard" applies in determining whether an employer is relieved from giving 60 days’ advance notice to employees of a mass layoff under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (the "WARN Act").

On October 20, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an important decision regarding the manner in which interest must be calculated to satisfy the cramdown requirements in a chapter 11 case.[1] The Second Circuit sided with Momentive’s senior noteholders and found that “take back” paper issued pursuant to a chapter 11 plan should bear a market rate of interest when the market rate can be ascerta

(6th Cir. Nov. 14, 2017)

In Cal Dive Offshore Contractors, Inc. v. M/V SAMPSON, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York considered a claim by vessel manager Cal Dive Offshore Contractors, Inc. (“Cal Dive”) for unpaid services against the vessel in rem, the owner CVI Global Lux Oil and Gas 4 S.a.r.l (“CVI”), and CarVal investors, LLC (“CarVal”) as owner’s agent. Following a trial, the district court held that Cal Dive’s maritime lien and in personam claims failed. Cal Dive has since filed an appeal, which remains to be decided.

As they say, what one hand giveth, the other hand taketh. In its recent decision in In re MPM Silicones, LLC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit addressed make-whole premiums and cramdown rates of interest (among other issues not addressed here), issuing rulings that will impact creditors and debtors alike.

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 1, 2011)