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").

If, like me, you have ever scratched your head in confusion while preparing your taxes and thought to yourself – “I can’t believe the IRS takes such an absurd position on xyz tax exemption I want to use – who comes up with these crazy positions?” – then you might take some pleasure in a recent opinion from Judge Gross of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware calling an argument made by the IRS “strained and a bit confusing.” You read that right.

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.

With the significant increase in cross-border bankruptcy and insolvency filings in the 43 nations or territories that have adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (the "Model Law"), including the U.S., the incidence of "COMI migration"—the shifting of a debtor’s "center of main interests" ("COMI") to a country with more favorable insolvency laws—has also increased. As demonstrated by a ruling handed down by the U.S.

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.

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)

The Bottom Line

The Third Circuit recently held, in Schepis v. Burtch (In re Pursuit Capital Management, LLC), No. 16-3953, 2017 WL 4783009 (3d Cir. Oct. 24, 2017), that under section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code, if a party does not seek a stay pending appeal of a sale order, it is highly likely that any appeal of such sale will be determined statutorily moot. That was certainly the case here.

What Happened?

Background

The Bottom Line

On October 20, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a long-awaited decision in In re MPM Silicones, LLC (“Momentive”) holding that, with one important exception, that the plan of reorganization confirmed by the bankruptcy court comports with Chapter 11. Case No. 15-1682 (2d Cir. Oct. 20, 2017).