Employees who sue their employers must disclose that lawsuit if they file for bankruptcy—right? Maybe not. In Slater v. U.S. Steel Corp., the Eleventh Circuit overruled prior precedent and impaired a valuable defense for early dismissal or settlement with bankrupt plaintiffs. This decision will affect strategy for employers that face litigation from bankrupt plaintiffs.

Legal Background

The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s interpretation of the creditor’s settlement agreement with the debtor. The agreement provided that the creditor released his claims against the city and the individual officers. The plan only provided for a small percentage to be paid on the claim, but stated claims against individual officers were not discharged by the plan. The creditor argued the settlement agreement should not be held to have released claims against the individual officers, but the court finds the plain language of the agreement makes clear such claims were released.

On August 10, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court rescinded the grant of certiorari in PEM Entities LLC v. Levin on the grounds that review had been “improvidently granted.” The case seemingly provided a perfect vehicle to resolve the circuit split on whether federal or state law governs debt recharacterization in bankruptcy, and less than two months after the Court first agreed to hear the case, its dismissal came as a surprise.

In recent years, courts have become increasingly critical of the doctrine of equitable mootness, a judicially created abstention doctrine that allows appellate courts to dismiss appeals from a bankruptcy court’s confirmation order in certain circumstances. Although the doctrine is meant to be applied only sparingly, to avoid unscrambling complex reorganizations on appeal, it has been invoked in noncomplex cases or where limited relief is practicable. As a result, some circuit courts have urged a more limited application of the doctrine.

Traditional thinking in the private placement noteholder community has been the “model form” approach to make-whole amounts created an enforceable liquidated damages claim in the event of voluntary or involuntary acceleration by the note issuer, including upon a bankruptcy filing. That thinking has been tested in the market as a result of a number of recent decisions involving public notes where courts have interpreted the specific indenture language to deny a make-whole claim.

The court awarded OpCo Noteholders in excess of $320 million in Make-Whole Amount and post-petition interest, confirming that make-whole is an enforceable liquidated damage claim.

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Sep. 15, 2017)

The bankruptcy court denies the lender’s motion to dismiss the Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The lender argued that the party signing the debtor’s petition did not have the requisite authority to commence a bankruptcy case for the debtor. The bankruptcy court finds that amendments to the debtor’s operating agreement were made for the sole purpose of eliminating the debtor’s ability to file for bankruptcy without the lender’s consent. The court finds this violates Federal public policy and the provisions are unenforceable. Opinion below.

Judge: Schaaf

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Sep. 14, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the university’s motion for summary judgment, determining that the student loan debt is nondischargeable. The debtor filed the adversary proceeding alleging repayment would present an undue hardship. The debtor did not respond to the university’s motion and failed to present any evidence to satisfy the Brunner test. Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorney for Debtor: Eric C. Redman, Redman Ludwig PC

Attorney for University: Constantine Alexander Hortis, Maryland Attorney General

Few words in real estate transactions inspire as much fear as "time is of the essence." If a closing date or other deadline is time-is-of-the-essence (TOTE), neither party can postpone the closing or extend the deadline without the other party's consent. So if a buyer is unable to timely close (often because they are unable to obtain financing) and the seller is unwilling to postpone the closing, the buyer may forfeit its security deposit and lose a valuable business opportunity. The consequences for failing to meet a TOTE closing are harsh and seemingly unavoidable.

Avoiding a fraudulent transfer to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) in bankruptcy has become easier, or at least clearer, as a result of a recent unanimous decision by a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Zazzali v. United States (In re DBSI, Inc.), 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16817 (9th Cir. Aug. 31, 2017).