Some bankruptcy cases can have long tails with issues developing years after the entities confirm their chapter 11 plans.  That seems to be particularly true when cases deal with mass torts.  As the recent case of Piper Aircraft Corporation demonstrates, an issue can arise in a chapter 11 case over twenty years after the debtor’s plan was confirmed.  In

All too often, after a debtor receives his or her discharge in bankruptcy and after the case has been closed, a creditor whose debt has been discharged does something which may appear to constitute an effort to collect that debt.  This may range from the sending of an informational account statement by the mortgagee on a home surrendered in the bankruptcy, filing a proof of claim in a subsequent bankruptcy case, to filing of a lawsuit to collect the discharged debt.

Payments made by a debtor within 90 days of a bankruptcy petition are generally avoidable as preferences under section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code.  Many exceptions and defenses exist, however, to ensure that creditors are not discouraged from conducting business with companies that may be at risk of filing

In Jubber v. SMC Electrical Products, Inc. et al. (In re C.W. Mining Co.), Case No. 13-4175 (Aug. 10, 2015), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that a single payment made by a debtor within the 90-day preference period to a seller, with whom the debtor had never done business, may satisfy the elements to be a payment in the “ordinary course” and, thus, not subject to a preference claim by the trustee.

On August 4, 2015, the Second Circuit weighed in for the first time on the circumstances in which the confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan could strip a secured creditor of its lien. In City of Concord, N.H. v.

Introduction

On August 26, 2015, Santa Fe Gold Corporation and three affiliates filed voluntary chapter 11 petitions in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.  The cases are docketed as case no. 15-11761, and have been assigned to The Honorable Mary F. Walrath.

A bankruptcy court’s characterization of a debtor’s pre-petition conveyance of an overriding royalty interest (“ORRI”) has an important effect on whether that ORRI is part of an oil and gas debtor’s bankruptcy estate and, in turn, what rights the ORRI holder has with respect to that interest. If an ORRI conveyance is characterized as the transfer of a real property interest, the conveyance is generally excluded from the debtor’s bankruptcy estate and the ORRI holder’s interest may not be affected by the bankruptcy.

In Baker Botts L.L.P. v. Asarco LLC, No. 14-103, 2015 WL 2473336 (U.S. June 15, 2015), the U.S.

On August 4, 2015, we posted: “Equitable Mootness In The Third Circuit: Dead Or Alive?”, which analyzed the Third Circuit’s opinion in In re One2One Communications.   The post predicted that Judge Krause’s concurrence would likely result in further opinions on equitable mootness.  Less than a month later we have such an opinion.  InAurelius v. Tribune, 14-3332 (3d Cir.