On May 4, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its first 2015 ruling in a case involving an issue of bankruptcy law. In Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, No. 14-116, 2015 BL 129010, ___ S. Ct. ___ (May 4, 2015), the court reviewed a ruling by the First Circuit Court of Appeals that an order of a bankruptcy appellate panel affirming a bankruptcy court’s denial of confirmation of a chapter 13 plan is not a final order and therefore is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d), so long as the debtor remains free to propose an amended plan. See Bullard v. Hyde Park Sav.

When an individual contemplates filing for bankruptcy protection, he or she has a few options. One is to file a Chapter 7 case, and another is to file a Chapter 13 case. In a Chapter 7, all of a debtor’s non-exempt assets are transferred to a bankruptcy estate to be liquidated and distributed to creditors. In a Chapter 13, the debtor retains assets and makes payments to creditors according to a court-approved plan.

Order Denying confirmation of chapter 13 plan not final order for purposes of appeal.

In Travelers Cas. and Sur. Co. of America v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 127 S. Ct. 199 (2007) ("Travelers"), the United States Supreme Court overturned a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion that had made pre-petition contractual provisions awarding attorneys' fees to the prevailing party unenforceable in bankruptcy to the extent the parties litigated issues peculiar to bankruptcy law. The Ninth Circuit opinion, Fobian v. Western Farm Credit Bank (In re Fobian), 951 F.2d 1149 (9th Cir.

On May 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the firm’s client Wellness International Network, reversing a Seventh Circuit decision that held that Article III of the Constitution was violated when litigants consented to the entry of judgments by bankruptcy courts on what have come to be known as “Stern” claims.  In siding with arguments made by Partner Catherine L.

New York, NY – May 21, 2007- On May 21, 2007, the United States Supreme Court agreed to review a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that Klein & Co. Futures, Inc., a futures commission merchant, lacked standing under the private remedy provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act to bring a suit for damages against a board of trade and its subsidiaries for failure to enforce rules to prevent a manipulation scheme that led to Klein & Co.’s collapse (Klein & Co. Futures Inc. v. Board of Trade of City of New York, U.S., No.

In a recent decision, Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts1, the United States Supreme Court considered whether a debtor has an absolute right under Section 706(a) of the Bankruptcy Code to convert a case to Chapter 13, clarifying a growing split among circuits as to whether the debtor’s bad faith conduct prior to his proposed conversion results in the forfeiture of the debtor’s right to convert.

On March 20, 2007, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., case docket no. 127 S.Ct. 1199 (2007), that federal bankruptcy law does not preclude an unsecured creditor from obtaining attorney’s fees authorized by a valid prepetition contract and incurred in postpetition litigation. In reaching this decision, the Supreme Court overruled the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s ruling in Fobian v. Western Farm Credit Bank (In re Fobian), 951 F.2d 1149 (9th Cir.

One of the most significant changes to chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the 2005 amendments was the absolute limit placed on extensions of the exclusivity periods. Courts no longer have the discretion to extend a debtor’s exclusive periods to file and solicit a plan beyond 18 months and 20 months, respectively, after the petition date. Although the legislative history contains no explanation for why this change was made, Congress presumably intended to accelerate the reorganization process or facilitate the prospects for competing plans in large, complex cases.

For some participants in the debt and credit markets, insider trading risks seem like a problem for someone else. There is some statistical basis for that assumption; the law of insider trading has been developed largely through cases involving the equity markets. There is no basis, however, for a sense of immunity. The Securities and Exchange Commission’s recent settlement involving Barclays Bank PLC and Steven J. Landzberg, a former proprietary trader for Barclays’ U.S.