The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently ruled in the Puerto Rico bankruptcy case that Fifth Amendment takings claims cannot be discharged or impaired by a bankruptcy plan. As a matter of first impression in that circuit, the Court disagreed with the Ninth Circuit and held that former property owners affected by prepetition takings must be paid in full.

In re Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd., 41 F.4th 29 (1st Cir. 2022)

In bankruptcy cases, things often move more slowly than people would like or expect.  In addition to dealing with oversight by the bankruptcy court and the United States Trustee, a debtor typically spends significant time engaging with its lenders and secured creditors, committees of unsecured creditors, and any number of other key stakeholders.  Court approval is needed for most significant events in the case, for anything out of the ordinary course of business, and, at times, even for small matters.  Transparency, adequate notice and opportunity to object, and due process a

Under the Bankruptcy Code, a reorganization plan may be approved if (1) proposed in “good faith” under  § 1129(a)(3), and (2) accepted by at least one class of creditors whose interests are impaired by the plan, see 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(10). In Village Green I, GP v. Fed.

A district court judge in the Middle District of Pennsylvania recently vacated a bankruptcy court’s decision allowing rejection of an oil and gas lease under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.  The District Court held that a debtor’s oil and gas lease was a conveyance of an interest in real property and not an executory contract or unexpired lease that could be rejected in bankruptcy under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.

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.

The courts continue to pick away at the “unfinished business rule.” The latest blow came earlier this month when a U.S. district court dismissed a Chapter 7 trustee’s claims against eight law firms who provided services to former clients of Howrey LLP. We are getting close to the point where the unfinished business rule may in fact be finished.

The European Court of Justice has today given its decision in the “Woolworths case” on the duty to consult collectively under the Collective Redundancies Directive, in particular defining the meaning of “establishment” for the purposes of determining when that duty is triggered.

Creditors have the right to challenge the remuneration and expenses of appointed administrators through the Court. There is a procedure set out in Rule 2.109(1B) Insolvency Rules including a time limit by which such a challenge should be made.  The Court has a discretion to extend the time limit but in what circumstances will the Court exercise its discretion?

“Bad news comes in threes.” “Third time’s the charm.” “Three strikes and you’re out.”

One of these three adages may come to characterize the outcome of a case of significant import argued before the US Supreme Court this week. The Supreme Court heard arguments on Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif. The case is the third in a trilogy including Stern v. Marshall and Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison, which examine the scope of the constitutional exercise of judicial power by bankruptcy courts.

As we expected might happen in light of the Court’s previous order, the parties in the Detroit bankruptcy appeal agreed to postpone oral argument.  In a letter to the parties, however, Judge Gibbons wrote that the appeals should be resolved before near the beginning of the hearing on the confirmation