On July 23, in ASARCO LLC v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al. No. 13-1435 (10th Cir.), the Tenth Circuit rejected the notion that settlement requirements are different in the bankruptcy context.  Section 113 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C.

In December, the Sixth Circuit, in Grant, Konvalinka & Harrison, P.C. v. Still (In re McKenzie), 737 F.3d 1034 (6th Cir. 2013), addressed two matters of first impression when it adopted the majority rules that (i) a creditor who seeks relief from the bankruptcy automatic stay has the burden to prove the validity of its perfected security interest in collateral; and (ii) the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations on bankruptcy avoidance actions does not prevent the trustee from asserting them defensively under section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code.

As Ursula the Sea Witch once said “Life’s full of tough choices, isn’t it?”  The Sixth Circuit was recently faced with its own “tough choice” on choice of law in Sutherland v. DCC Litigation Facility, Inc., No. 13-1497 (6th Cir. Feb.

“And it’s too late, baby now, it’s too late,Though we really did try to make it.”

- Carole King, It’s Too Late

ACT 42/2015 AMENDS ARTICLE 1964 OF THE CIVIL CODE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON ACTIONS)

Confirmation of a chapter 11 plan providing for the reorganization or liquidation of a debtor is the culmination of the chapter 11 process. To promote the fundamental policy of finality in that process, the general rule is that a final confirmation order is inviolable. The absence of certainty that the transactions effectuated under a plan are valid and permanent would undermine chapter 11’s fundamental purpose as a vehicle for rehabilitating ailing enterprises and providing debtors with a fresh start.

In Industrial Enterprises of America v. Burtis (In re Pitt Penn Holding Co., Inc.), 2012 WL 204095 (Bankr. D. Del. Jan.

The ability to borrow money during the course of a bankruptcy case is an important tool available to a chapter 11 debtor-in-possession (“DIP”). Often times, the debtor’s most logical choice for a lender is one with an existing pre-bankruptcy relationship with the debtor. As a condition to making new loans, however, lenders commonly require the debtor to waive its right to pursue avoidance or lender liability actions against the lender based upon pre-bankruptcy events.

A recent High Court case involving unlawful loans to directors illustrates the potential pitfalls involved in calculating limitation periods, and the circumstances in which the usual six year statutory limitation period will not apply to a recovery claim against a fiduciary.

Facts

Broadside Colours and Chemicals Ltd was a family firm supplying dyes to the textile trade. The directors were Geoffrey Button, his wife Catherine Button, and their son James Button. Only the father and son were shareholders.

The bankruptcy court in the City of Harrisburg's Chapter 9 proceeding held a hearing on Tuesday, November 1 on the Mayor’s motion for an order clarifying that the City had the ability to pay its debts in the ordinary course.  The court found that given the limitation on its jurisdiction under Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code and given that Bankruptcy Code Section 363 (which deals with generally with the use, sale or lease of property) is not incorporated into Chapter 9, the City does have the authority to pay its vendors in the ordinary course, including vendors with amounts owed