The U.S. Bankruptcy Code gives debtors access to powerful rights and remedies that are not available under non-bankruptcy law. As a balance to these extraordinary powers however, a debtor may lose some or all control over its own affairs under certain circumstances. One of the rights that the debtor “puts into play” when it files bankruptcy is the attorney-client privilege (the Privilege).

The Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) was passed by Congress in 1930 to protect agricultural produce suppliers from unscrupulous vendors who refused to pay the suppliers for their goods.

What does it mean to “cure” a default in the context of a plan of reorganization? This question arises by virtue of section 1123(a)(5)(G) of the Bankruptcy Code, which requires that a plan provide adequate means for the plan’s implementation, including the “curing or waiving of any default.” On November 4, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals defined what it means to “cure” by holding that a debtor can only cure a contractual default under a plan of reorganization by complying with contractual post-default interest rate provisions.

Copyrighting their names, “signing” with red thumbprints – we’ve seen some unusual court filings from unique individuals. But one person has apparently gone too far.

It can be incredibly frustrating for a lender when a borrower defaults on a loan and asserts frivolous defenses in response. A group of individuals who call themselves “sovereign citizens” or “sovereign freemen” often makes lawsuits quite tedious by refusing to recognize the authority of the courts or the government, or claiming that the loan is invalid because it is based on “vapor money.”

Hoku, a publicly-owned Delaware corporation, filed for bankruptcy with just $8 million in assets compared to a relatively staggering $1.3 billion in liabilities, much of which was funded debt. In light of this significant insolvency, Hoku’s chapter 7 trustee brought various breach of fiduciary claims against Hoku’s board of directors, including one akin to a claim for “deepening insolvency.” As the case of Hopkins v.

In Huff Energy Fund v. Gershen, C.A. No. 11116-VCS, the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a stockholder’s challenge to the board of director’s decision to dissolve the company following an asset sale. The Court ruled that the enhanced scrutiny standards of Revlon and Unocal do not supplant the business judgment rule in the context of a company’s decision to dissolve.

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 1, 2016)

The bankruptcy court grants the debtor’s motion for summary judgment in this 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) nondishargeability action. The plaintiff alleged the debtor willfully and maliciously injured the plaintiff, but failed to offer any evidence that would create a material factual dispute as to the debtor’s intent with respect to actions that gave rise to a prepetition judgment against the debtor. The court finds summary judgment in favor of the debtor is appropriate. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

TerraForm Power Settles Derivative Lawsuit by Increasing Independence 
 

A corporate manager with control over construction funds, facing personal liability under the NY trust fund law to an unpaid sub and the homeowner for improper diversion of funds, cannot discharge that liability in a personal bankruptcy. Even when the original contracts were with a corporate entity. That is the lesson from the federal bankruptcy court in Manhattan.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a decision in Pacifica L 51, LLC v. New Investments, Inc. (In re New Investments, Inc.) (16 C.D.O.S. 11723, Nov. 4, 2016), which held that a secured creditor can collect default interest in connection with a cure under a chapter 11 plan, thereby rendering void the long-established rule under Great W. Bank & Tr. v.