Each year amendments are made to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, which govern how bankruptcy cases are managed. The amendments address issues identified by an Advisory Committee made up of federal judges, bankruptcy attorneys, and others. The rule amendments are ultimately adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court and technically subject to Congressional disapproval.

Maryland Legal Alert for Financial Services

A person in possession of a debtor’s property upon a bankruptcy filing now has more guidance from the Supreme Court as to the effect of the automatic stay. In City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton, 141 S. Ct. 585 (2021), handed down on January 14 of 2021, the Court was faced with the issue of whether the City of Chicago (the “City”) was liable for violation of the automatic stay for refusing to return vehicles it impounded pre-petition. Issuing a narrow decision under Section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Court held that it was not.

On October 12, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court denied, without comment, a petition for a writ of certiorari in a case challenging the doctrine of equitable mootness. Equitable mootness has been described as a “narrow doctrine by which an appellate court deems it prudent for practical reasons to forbear deciding an appeal when to grant the relief requested will undermine the finality and reliability of consummated plans of reorganization.”1 By his petition, David Hargreaves—an unsecured noteholder of debtor Nuverra Environmental Solutions Inc.

A statute must be interpreted and enforced as written, regardless, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, “of whether a court likes the results of that application in a particular case.” That legal maxim guided the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in a recent decision^[1] in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtor’s repeated filings and requests for dismissal of his bankruptcy cases in order to avoid foreclosure of his home.

In Mexico, the trustee holds the property of the trust as the legal owner, but only legally authorized entities may act as trustees, for example, banks (credit institutions) and other financial institutions. Deed in trust is one of the first choices of lenders when it comes to secured transactions, even in bankruptcies, but that may no longer be the case.

Exploring the bounds of concreteness and traceability following the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, the Sixth Circuit in Krueger v. Experian, et al. recently reversed a grant of summary judgment in favor of a lender in a Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) case, finding that the plaintiff had a sufficiently concrete injury to support Article III standing.

Corporate restructuring transactions are often motivated by tax planning, though there are usually other legitimate corporate needs to be achieved. The Corporations Tax Code of Japan contains provisions granting the government power to deny the effects of corporate restructuring for tax purposes—e.g., Article 132 (for family company group transactions) and Article 132-2 (for intra-group mergers and other reorganizations). In recent years, Japanese courts have been trying to clarify the standard for denying the tax effect of certain restructuring transactions.

In civil litigation, a “final decision” for purposes of appeal is normally limited to an order that resolves the entire case. In general, a ruling cannot be appealed unless it ends the litigation. A bankruptcy case, however, often encompasses many individual controversies. As the United States Supreme Court recently ruled, a bankruptcy court’s order definitively denying a creditor’s request for relief from the automatic stay is a “final decision.” Consequently, the clock on the creditor’s time to appeal starts ticking as soon as the order is entered.

Whether a contract is "executory" such that it can be assumed, rejected, or assigned in bankruptcy is a question infrequently addressed by the circuit courts of appeals. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit provided some rare appellate court-level guidance on the question in Spyglass Media Group, LLC v. Bruce Cohen Productions (In re Weinstein Company Holdings LLC), 997 F.3d 497 (3d Cir. 2021).