Sounds like an odd combination—enforceability of make-whole and post-petition interest and patent law. It is. But relevant nonetheless. Recall that a key argument in the ongoing Ultra Petroleum dispute regarding the noteholders’ entitlement to make-whole and post-petition interest is the existence of the Solvent Debtor Rule. The Solvent Debtor Rule is a judicially created exception to the prohibition on claims for post-petition interest by unsecured creditors in bankruptcy.

As we reported, on June 21, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to revisit the rigid Brunner standard for determining “undue hardship” capable of discharging student debt. The same day, United States Bankruptcy Judge Michelle M.

This was first published in the LexisNexis Insolvency Law Bulletin (Vol. 21, No. 5 & 6).

This article is co-authored by Justin Ward of Litigation Capital Management and Marcel Fernandes of 12 Wentworth Selborne Chambers.

In two recent rulings, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York confirmed that structured dismissals are viable options for debtors to exit bankruptcy notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s Jevic decision.

The application of sovereign immunity principles in bankruptcy cases has vexed the courts for decades. The U.S. Supreme Court’s opinions on the matter have not helped much. Although they have addressed the issue in specific contexts, they have not established clear guidelines that the lower courts may apply more generally. The Third Circuit took a crack at clarifying this muddy but important area of the law in the case of Venoco LLC (with its affiliated debtors, the “Debtors”).

Background

On Monday, the United States Supreme Court denied Thelma McCoy’s petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, passing up a golden opportunity to bring uniformity to the “important and recurring question” of how to determine the sort of “undue hardship” that qualifies a debtor for a discharge of student loans under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8).

Executive Summary

In its ruling on Wednesday 27 July in the matter of Belmont Park Investments PTY Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Lte & Anor [2011] UKSC 38 the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has dismissed the appeal by Lehman Brothers Special Finance Inc. ("LSF") relating to the validity of an alleged anti-deprivation provision known as a 'flip' provision which, has the effect of altering the payment priority order as a result of a bankruptcy of the relevant swap counterparty, in this case Lehman Brothers.

On January 9, the Seventh Circuit overturned its own 39-year-old precedent to find that: (1) the definition of “transfer” for purposes of section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code depends on federal, not state, law; and (2) the date of “transfer” is the time at which the money passes to the creditor’s control.

There is seemingly, in the opinion of a great number of bankruptcy courts, a conflict between the United States Bankruptcy Code requirements that a debtor reorganize or liquidate “in good faith,” the federal Controlled Substances Act [21 USC § 841] (“CSA”) prohibiting, among other things, the distribution or sale of marijuana, and the laws of over half of the states in the country that authorize the sale of marijuana for medical and other purposes.