On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court held in City of Chicago v. Fulton, 592 U.S. __ (2021), that a creditor in possession of a debtor's property does not violate the automatic stay, specifically section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code, by retaining the property after the filing of a bankruptcy petition. The Court's decision provides important guidance to bankruptcy courts, practitioners, and parties on the scope of the automatic stay's requirements.

Section 365(h) of the Bankruptcy Code provides special protection for tenants if a trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") rejects an unexpired lease under which the debtor was the lessor by giving the tenant the option of retaining possession of the leased premises. Although the provision clearly describes what rights a tenant has if it makes such an election, it does not unequivocally address the extent of the electing tenant's obligations under the rejected lease or any related agreements. The U.S.

Under the "single-satisfaction rule," although a bankruptcy trustee or a chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") may seek to avoid and recover avoidable transfers of a debtor's property from more than one transferee, the aggregate recovery is limited to the value of the property transferred. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit examined this rule in Jones v. Brand Law Firm PA (In re Belmonte), 931 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2019).

In our latest installment of “Breaking the Code”, we take a look at a common section of the Bankruptcy Code that comes up in nearly every chapter 11 case: section 365(a). Section 365 contains one of the most powerful rights conferred upon a chapter 11 Debtor: the right to take a step back, evaluate its contracts and leases, and assume profitable agreements while rejecting unprofitable agreements.

The Big Easy. A city overflowing with art, food, fun, and pride. A place where you can experience the immensity and power of a hurricane (both the rum-based libation and the coastal weather event). And home to one of the most popular travel destinations in the United States—the French Quarter. In this installment of the Weil Bankruptcy Blog, we take you to Bourbon Street and review a decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals resolving a dispute between two companies regarding (fittingly) the assumption of a lease for a saloon on Bourbon Street.

Today we’ll begin with a two-part question: When do you suppose you could (i) hold a debtor’s property hostage without running afoul of the automatic stay and (ii) also collect on an administrative expense for postpetition rent for leased space used to store such property?

If you don’t already know the answers to the above questions, perhaps an overview of a recent decision from the Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey will provide some insight.

Do you serve on your condominium’s board as a fun way to meet your neighbors and test out your governance skills? What seems like a low-commitment diversion can balloon into a stressful time suck – or worse.  You may be held personally liable for breaching fiduciary duties to your condo.  And if you fall into really bad luck and end up in bankruptcy, you may not even be able to discharge debts for such liability, as a recent Fifth Circuit decision reminds us.  

Practitioners generally identify “excusable neglect” as the standard that bankruptcy courts apply in determining whether to allow a creditor’s untimely proof of claim. A creditor who lets the bar date pass finds itself in the undesirable position of having to persuade the bankruptcy court that its neglect to file a timely proof of claim was excusable.

The recent decision from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, ECP Commercial II LLC v. Town Center Flats, LLC (In re Town Center Flats, LLC), gives us at the Weil Bankruptcy Blog a reason to revisit the issue of “absolute” assignments of rent.

When is a claim contingent? When is a claim subject to a bona fide dispute and who has the burden of proof? When is a claim against a person? When is a claim too small to count? When is an alleged debtor generally not paying his debts as they come due? Are we there yet?