The statutory language is clear. As of a bankruptcy petition’s filing date, the automatic stay of section 362 constricts many a creditor and bars many an action. The broad scope of section 362(a)(1) proscribes “the commencement or continuation ...

When can a municipality declare bankruptcy under chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code? An issue explored the headline-grabbing chapter 9 case of Detroit, that’s the question illuminated by a decision dealing with the travails of Chester, Pennsylvania, issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (“Bankruptcy Court”) on March 14, 2023.

Chester’s Long Road to Insolvency

Background

Whether a foreign bankruptcy case can be recognized under chapter 15 if the foreign debtor does not satisfy the commands of both section 109 (of chapter 1) and section 1517 (of chapter 15) of the Bankruptcy Code has long been a contentious issue. As previewed at an oral argument held on March 10, 2023, the Eleventh Circuit has now waded into this thicket, setting up the possibility of a circuit-level counterweight to the Second Circuit’s seminal decision in In re Barnet.

Statutory Text

On January 20, 2023, as few courts, such as the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado, have consistently done, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California (the “Bankruptcy Court”) further hewed a path for former cannabis businesses to utilize the protections of the U.S. Code's eleventh title (the "Bankruptcy Code") in spite of a mostly inhospitable (and frequently hesitant) jurisprudence--and the steady opposition of the U.S. Trustee's Office (the "UST").

In legal parlance, the term “standing” embraces several discrete doctrines that govern the capacity of a party to sue and appear before a particular court. These concepts' fluidity should not obscure their importance: a party’s standing is a perpetual jurisdictional question, open to review throughout the lifespan of a particular case or matter and at every appellate level.

Types of Standing

Two Generally Applicable Forms

In legal parlance, the term “standing” embraces several discrete doctrines that govern the capacity of a party to sue and appear before a particular court. These concepts' fluidity should not obscure their importance: a party’s standing is a perpetual jurisdictional question, open to review throughout the lifespan of a particular case or matter and at every appellate level.

Types of Standing

Two Generally Applicable Forms

Galeria Karstadt Kaufhof GmbH ("GKK"), based in Essen, Germany, is the second largest department store chain in Europe with 131 stores and 18,000 employees. As some may recall, this is not the first time things have gone badly for the department store chain. Back in the 2000s, under CEO Thomas Middelhoff, who was sentenced to three years in prison in 2014 for 27 counts of embezzlement and tax evasion, the company's balance sheets were less than stellar.

Once asserted, may a party alter it? Once claimed, may a party contradict it?

A party’s ability to abandon a previously taken position and champion its converse in a later case or proceeding often depends on one of the law’s more esoteric prohibitions: that kaleidoscopic smorgasbord of precepts collectively known as “judicial estoppel.”

What Is “Judicial Estoppel,” Precisely?

One concept—“center of main interests,” or COMI for short, one of the more significant elements borrowed from international law and incorporated into Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code—sits at the heart of the latter, enacted in 2005 as the latest U.S. legislative attempt to handle cross-border insolvencies and international restructurings.

In spite of this notion’s importance, however, bankruptcy and appellate federal courts have long divided over a thresholder issue: as of which date should a foreign debtor’s COMI be determined?

In a unanimous decision Bartenwerfer v Buckley, No. 21-908, 598 U.S. (2023), the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the breath of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code’s discharge provision – and exceptions thereto – and held that a debt resulting from fraud (even where the debtor was not directly involved) is, nevertheless, nondischargeable. While the Court’s principles provide a roadmap for analyzing potentially nondischargeable claims, it also expands what was originally thought to be a “narrow” exception to discharge.