On May 1, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Merit Management Group v. FTI Consulting, No. 16-784, on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals from the Seventh Circuit. See FTI Consulting, Inc. v. Merit Management Group, LP, 830 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2016) (a discussion of the Seventh Circuit's ruling is available here).

In Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Quantum Foods, LLC v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (In re Quantum Foods, LLC), 554 B.R. 729 (Bankr. D. Del. 2016), a Delaware bankruptcy court held in a matter of apparent first impression that a creditor’s allowed administrative expense claim may be set off against the creditor’s potential liability for a preferential transfer. The ruling is an important development for prepetition vendors that continue to provide goods or services to a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession.

In Redmond v. Jenkins (In re Alternate Fuels, Inc.), 789 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir. 2015), a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld bankruptcy courts’ authority to recharacterize insider debt as equity. In so ruling, the court rejected an argument that recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent prevents bankruptcy courts from using section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code to recharacterize debt as equity. Nevertheless, after upholding the recharacterization doctrine, the Tenth Circuit panel split on the doctrine’s application.

When Can a Subsidiary Be Liable for the Actions of Its Owners?

In a typical application of the veil piercing remedy, an equity holder is held liable for the debts of the corporate entity it owns and controls. The tests courts use for determining when the remedy is available vary, but generally veil piercing may occur only where the equity holder has abused the corporate form, by using its control over an entity to commit a fraud or other injustice.

We recently blogged about Weinman v. Walker (In re Adam Aircraft Industries, Inc.), a decision from the U.S.

For those readers who have a sophisticated understanding of bankruptcy law, the holdings of Jester v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In re Jester) will not be surprising.

Payments made by a debtor within 90 days of a bankruptcy petition are generally avoidable as preferences under section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code.  Many exceptions and defenses exist, however, to ensure that creditors are not discouraged from conducting business with companies that may be at risk of filing

Recharacterization: an overview

Although almost all of an individual debtor’s assets become property of the estate upon a bankruptcy filing, certain exceptions exist to the rule at both the federal and state level.  In some jurisdictions, funds held for a debtor in retirement plans are exempt assets.  An open question, however, is whether payments distributed from such plans prior to the petition date are also exempt assets.  The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently held in