It’s that time of year again! The bankruptcy courts’ new rules, fees, and forms come into effect today. Just like news outlets this time of year summarize where you can find the best online deals, we thought we’d take the opportunity to review this year’s bankruptcy-related amendments. Consult your local listings bankruptcy rules, statutes and forms for more detail.

Rule Amendments

“Life is not about perfect information. Life is about choices, which is why you have elections.”

Regardless of whether a creditor has a claim identified in a debtor’s schedules of assets and liabilities, generally speaking, most attorneys representing creditors in the context of a chapter 11 case will advise their clients to file a formal proof of claim with the bankruptcy court.  Often this is just “belts and suspenders” and a matter of good practice but, if nothing else, a formal proof of claim will serve to protect a creditor’s rights and interests vis à vis the estate.

On August 26, 2014, Judge Drain concluded the confirmation hearing in Momentive Performance Materials and issued several bench rulings on cramdown interest rates, the availability of a make-whole premium, third party releases, and the extent of the subordination of senior subordinated noteholders.

As this Blog has discussed in a number of recent posts, free and clear sales under section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code often lead to disputes over whether section 363(f) can strip assets of particular types of claims and interests. Although section 363(f) plays an important role in maximizing the value of a debtor’s assets in a section 363 sale, adversely affected parties may object to those assets being sold free and clear of their claims.

When an oversecured creditor forecloses on a debtor’s property after the automatic stay has been lifted, does the Bankruptcy Code (as opposed to state law) govern recovery of attorney’s fees and other amounts from the sale proceeds? Does the bankruptcy court have jurisdiction over the distribution of such proceeds? In Goldsby v.

In Part II of this three-part entry, we mentioned that the District Court for

The issue of whether directors, officers, and/or shareholders breached their fiduciary duties to a company prior to bankruptcy is commonly litigated in chapter 11 cases, as creditors look to additional sources for recovery, such as D&O insurance or “deep-pocket” shareholders, including private equity firms. The recent decision in In re AMC Investors, LLC, 637 B.R. 43 (Bankr. D. Del. 2022) provides a helpful reminder of the importance of timing in bringing such claims and the use by defendants of affirmative defenses to defeat those claims.

As discussed in a prior blog entry, virtually any amount of property in the United States will enable most foreign entities to commence a case under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.  But once that case is opened, there are a number of challenges that parties may raise to keeping the c

Nothing says “closure” quite like a termination agreement reaffirmed by a bankruptcy court – right?