In Insight Terminal Solutions, LLC v. Cecelia Financial Management (In re Insight Terminal Solutions, LLC), 148 F.4th 869 (6th Cir. 2025), the Sixth Circuit reversed a bankruptcy court’s exclusion of deposition testimony in a debt-versus-equity recharacterization dispute. While the majority resolved the appeal on evidentiary grounds, Judge Eric Murphy’s concurrence questioned whether bankruptcy courts have any federal authority to recharacterize loans as equity.

28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5) provides: “personal injury tort and wrongful death claims shall be tried in the district court in which the bankruptcy case is pending, or in the district court in the district in which the claim arose”

In other words, “personal injury tort” and “wrongful death” claims cannot be tried by a bankruptcy court.

The common law of assignments for benefit of creditors (“ABCs”) has been around for a very long time as an out-of-court process under the law of trusts: debtor is trustor, assignee is trustee, and debtor’s creditors are beneficiaries.

And the common law of ABCs had already been well-established, when the U.S. Constitution was ratified.

Situations Partner Kai Zeng in London Kai Zeng, who advises on cross-border restructurings and special situations matters, has joined the firm in London as a partner in the Restructuring Department and Finance and Hybrid Capital & Special Situations groups.

Kai advises sponsors, debtors, creditors and strategic investors on restructurings of stressed and distressed businesses, as well as hedge and credit funds, investments banks and private equity firms on their review and diligence of European investment opportunities in par, stressed and distressed transactions.

On June 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court released its 5-4 opinion in connection with the bankruptcy case of Purdue Pharma L.P. (“Purdue”). Over a vigorous dissent authored by Justice Kavanaugh, a narrow majority of the Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not permit chapter 11 plans of reorganization to provide for non-consensual releases of non-debtors outside of the asbestos context.

Ever since Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code in 1984 to remedy the U.S. Supreme Court's 1982 ruling declaring the jurisdictional groundwork of title 11 unconstitutional, there have been lingering questions regarding the scope of a bankruptcy court's jurisdiction to rule on the many matters and proceedings that must typically be resolved in a bankruptcy case. One of those questions—namely, whether the bankruptcy court retains jurisdiction over claims and assets with respect to which the court has granted relief from the Bankruptcy Code's "automatic stay"—was addressed by the U.S.