In its recent decision Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 137 S. Ct. 973 (2017), the United States Supreme Court held that a bankruptcy court may not approve a structured dismissal of a chapter 11 case that provides for distributions that fail to follow the standard priority rules, unless the affected creditors consent to such treatment.

The United States Supreme Court recently submitted to Congress an amendment to Bankruptcy Rule 2019 dealing with disclosure by groups of hedge funds and other distressed investors in reorganization cases. Unless Congress blocks its passage, which is unlikely, the amendment will become effective on Dec. 1, 2011.1 As shown below, the new rule streamlines and clarifies what had become a frequently litigated disclosure process.

Background

The Supreme Court unanimously held on March 20, 2007, that an unsecured lender could recover contractbased legal fees “incurred in [post-bankruptcy] litigation” on “issues of bankruptcy law.” Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., __ U.S. __ (March 20, 2007). Op., at 1, 3. In doing so, the court vacated a summary ruling by the Ninth Circuit last year. 167 Fed. Appx. 593 (9th Cir. 2006) (held, “attorney fees… not recoverable in bankruptcy for litigating issues ‘peculiar to federal bankruptcy law.’“), citing In re Fobian, 951 F.2d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir.

On Dec. 16, 2021, U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon in the Southern District of New York vacated Purdue Pharma’s confirmed plan of reorganization after finding that the Bankruptcy Court below did not have statutory authority to issue a confirmation order granting non-consensual third-party releases — namely for the benefit of the Sackler family who owns Purdue. In re Purdue Pharma, L.P., Case No. 7:21-cv-08566 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2021).

Courts frequently dismiss creditor appeals of bankruptcy confirmation orders as equitably moot. However, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently departed from this historic practice. In reversing a District Court determination that confirmation of a plan rendered a creditor’s appeal equitably moot, the Eighth Circuit held that motions to dismiss for equitable mootness should be “rarely granted,” and it reversed and remanded the lower courts’ dismissal of a creditor’s appeal of a Plan Confirmation Order on equitable mootness grounds.

A secured lender's "mere retention of property [after a pre-bankruptcy repossession] does not violate" the automatic stay provision [362(a) (3)] of the Bankruptcy Code, held a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 14, 2021. City of Chicago v. Fulton, 2021 WL 125106, 4 ( Jan. 14, 2021). Reversing the Seventh Circuit's affirmance of a bankruptcy court judgment holding a secured lender in contempt for violating the automatic stay, the Court resolved "a split" in the Circuits. Id. at 2. The Second, Eighth and Ninth Circuits had agreed with the Seventh Circuit.

The debtors' legal malpractice claim was "not property of their bankruptcy estate," held a split Ninth Circuit on June 30, 2020. In re Glaser, 816 Fed. Appx. 103, 104 (9th Cir. June 30, 2020) (2-1). But the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota one week later affirmed a bankruptcy court judgment that "the [debtor's] estate was the proper owner" of such a claim. In re Bruess, 2020 WL3642324, 1 (D. Minn. July 6, 2020).

A secured lender’s “mere retention of property [after a pre-bankruptcy–repossession] does not violate” the automatic stay provision [§ 362(a)(3)] of the Bankruptcy Code (“Code”), held a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 14, 2021. City of Chicago v. Fulton, 2021 WL 125106, *4 (Jan. 14,2021). Reversing the Seventh Circuit’s affirmance of a bankruptcy court judgment holding a secured lender in contempt for violating the automatic stay, the Court resolved “a split” in the Circuits. Id., at *2. The Second, Eighth and Ninth Circuits had agreed with the Seventh Circuit.

The Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) “does not limit the allowability of unsecured claims for contractual post-[bankruptcy] attorneys’ fees,” held the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on Nov. 26, 2018. In re Tribune Media Company, 2018 WL 6167504 (D. Del. Nov. 26, 2018). In a short and sensible opinion, the district court reversed the bankruptcy court’s disallowance of an undersecured lender’s fees.

The securities safe harbor protection of Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) § 546(e) does not protect allegedly fraudulent “transfers in which financial institutions served as mere conduits,” held the U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 27, 2018. Merit Management Group LP v. FTI Consulting Inc., 2018 WL 1054879, *7 (2018). Affirming the Seventh Circuit’s reinstatement of the bankruptcy trustee’s complaint alleging the insolvent debtor’s overpayment for a stock interest, the Court found the payment not covered by §546(e) and thus recoverable. The district court had dismissed the trustee’s claim.