In a case of first impression, the Seventh Circuit recently issued an opinion that may cause landlords and their advisors to re-evaluate the consequences of terminating a financially distressed commercial tenant’s lease prior to bankruptcy. Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Great Lakes Quick Lube LP v. T.D. Investments I, LLP (In re Great Lakes Quick Lube LP), --- F.3d ---, 2016 WL 930298 (7th Cir. Mar. 11, 2016) (Posner, J.).

Practitioners that exclusively represent clients in large scale restructurings and chapter 11 reorganizations may be used to the debtor remaining in place with senior management continuing to oversee the day to day operations of the company and overseeing the debtor’s reorganization case.  It may seem strange then to such practitioners that, unlike in chapter 11 cases, the debtor in a chapter 7 case often has only a limited role in its own bankruptcy case after the initial debtor interview and the section 341 meeting of creditors.  In a chapter 7 case, a trustee is appointed and i

Today, the Second Circuit reissued the latest in a line of cases adopting an expansive reading of the safe harbor under Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code. In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litig., Case 13-3992, Doc. 356-1 (2d Cir. Mar. 29, 2016). (This opinion was originally issued on March 24 and withdrawn on March 28. The opinion released today contains minor, non-substantive alterations to the text on pages 8, 22, 26, and 40. In all other respects, it is identical to the opinion withdrawn last week).

Section 546(e) of the bankruptcy code bars state law constructive fraudulent conveyance claims asserted by creditors seeking to augment recoveries from a bankruptcy estate

Earlier today, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in In re Tribune Company Fraudulent Transfer Litigation, No. 13-3992-cv, holding that the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor of Section 546(e) (the Safe Harbor) prohibits clawback claims brought by creditors under state fraudulent transfer laws to the same extent that it prohibits such claims when brought by a debtor.

On March 16, 2016, Judge Shannon of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware rejected a proposed fee structure for Baker Botts L.L.P., which was proposed counsel to the debtors in In re New Gulf Resources, LLC. His ruling is the latest development from that court on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Baker Botts L.L.P. v.

On April 1, a bevy of dollar amounts set forth in the Bankruptcy Code will change. Some of these are quite important to substantive relief, and others are quite important to making sure you don’t look bad in front of the client or your favorite (least favorite?) judge. We have Section 104 of the Bankruptcy Code to thank for this malpractice-inducing enterprise, which we enjoy every three years. See 11 U.S.C. § 104 (a) (“On April 1, 1998, and at each 3-year interval ending on April 1 thereafter, each dollar amount in effect under sections . . . shall be adjusted . . . .”).

Creditors of a Chapter 11 debtor asserting “state law, constructive fraudulent [transfer] claims … are preempted by Bankruptcy Code Section 546(e),” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on March 29, 2016. In re Tribune Company Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation, 2016 WL ____, at *1 (2d Cir. March 29, 2016), as corrected.

Two recent court decisions may affect an equity sponsor’s options when deciding whether and how to put money into - or take money out of - a portfolio company. The first may expand the scope of “inequitable conduct” that, in certain Chapter 11 settings, could lead a court to equitably subordinate a loan made by a sponsor to its portfolio company, placing the loan behind all of the company’s other debt in the payment queue. The second decision muddies the waters of precedent under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code on the issue of the avoidability of non-U.S.

This alert describes certain information regarding the recently filed bankruptcy case of Emerald Oil, Inc. and is an example of current developments in the energy industry.

Emerald Oil, Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively referred to as the “Debtors”) filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code on March 22, 2016 in the District of Delaware, pursuant to which the Debtors plan to sell substantially all of their assets (the “Assets”) in a possible auction in July 2016.

Lenders of troubled mortgages upon Massachusetts real property should carefully review their mortgages to avoid potential invalidation of such mortgages in bankruptcy. Bankruptcy courts in Massachusetts have led the charge in avoiding mortgages containing defects in notary clauses.

Massachusetts law requires that a validly executed acknowledgement be attached to a mortgage as a prerequisite to recording the mortgage in the registry of deeds.