The United States Supreme Court recently held that the submission of a proof of claim in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case for payment of a time-barred claim did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “Act”). Overturning the decision of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court explained that the Bankruptcy Code includes certain safeguards which limit the potential for abuse, and thus, the assertion of a time-barred claim in bankruptcy proceedings did not constitute a practice prohibited under the Act.

In a May 8, 2017 ruling, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court denied the official committee of unsecured creditors from accessing certain documents withheld from production based on the attorney-client privilege. Despite the purpose underlying the committee’s creation, the court distinguished the role of the committee from that of a bankruptcy trustee and barred the production of privileged documents in the absence of a finding of insolvency. This ruling hampers the ability of a creditor’s committee to root out fraud and potentially recover money for the benefit of the bankruptcy estate.

In re Intervention Energy Holdings, LLC, Case No. 16-11247 (D. Del. June 3, 2016), the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware dealt with the issue of whether a Delaware LLC lacked authority to file a Chapter 11 petition under the Bankruptcy Code because the limited liability company agreement of the LLC in question required the consent of all members and one member did not consent to the filing.

Benjamin M. Hron, Esq. ANATOMY OF A TERM SHEET: SERIES A FINANCING A key milestone in the lifecycle of many successful companies (and, admittedly, many unsuccessful companies) is obtaining financing from angel or venture capital investors, but in negotiating with experienced investors entrepreneurs are usually at a distinct disadvantage because they are unfamiliar with standard terms. While we strongly suggest entrepreneurs consult their lawyers rather than negotiate a term sheet mano-amano, we know this often doesn’t happen.

Associated Community Bancorp, Inc. v. The Travelers Companies, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34799 (D. Conn. Apr. 8, 2010)

On September 14, 2010, a New York state court entered an Order of Rehabilitation for Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company and Centennial Insurance Company (collectively, "Atlantic") to try to resolve Atlantic's insolvency and return it to the marketplace. The court appointed the New York Superintendent of Insurance as the "Rehabilitator" and directed the Rehabilitator to, among other things, take possession and control of Atlantic's property, conduct Atlantic 's business, and remove the causes and conditions that made this rehabilitation proceeding necessary.

In a decision that clarifies the rights of secured lenders to rents generated by a mortgaged property under New York law, a bankruptcy court in the Southern District of New York has held that rents which were assigned pre-petition pursuant to an assignment of rents executed in connection with a mortgage loan do not belong to the bankruptcy estate because the Lender took sufficient affirmative actions to perfect its rights over the rents.1

The following commentary provides empirical evidence of how pronounced an impact the consolidation of asbestos cases has had upon the verdicts in the New York City Asbestos Litigation (‘‘NYCAL’’).1 The proliferation of case consolidations as the judicial response to burgeoning caseloads in NYCAL, with an emphasis on expediency and case management, has led to inequitable outcomes, which in turn have raised concerns over violations of defendant due process.

What happens to the payment for a solar renewable energy credit (SREC) when the payor closes its doors?  Maryland citizens are finding out the hard way.  The promises made to some of them are turning up empty.

Two years ago we published an alert about the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC, 599 F.3d 298 (3d Cir. 2010). That case held that in a sale of a debtor’s assets under a Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan of reorganization, the debtor could prohibit credit bidding by secured creditors. Now the Supreme Court of the United States has rejected the reasoning behind that holding and ruled that under normal circumstances a secured creditor’s right to credit bid cannot be taken away by a plan’s bidding structure.