On Thursday, General Motors Corporation (GM) filed its Annual Report on Form 10-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission which notably included an opinion of its auditors on its financial statements in which the auditors stated that GM’s “recurring losses from operations, stockholders’ deficit, and inabili

Reports on the White House administration and members of Congress have suggested that the Treasury Department is nearing a decision to provide assistance to at least two of the Big Three U.S. automakers.

This week, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and the House Committee on Financial Services held a second round of hearings, as a follow-up to the hearings held

In Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), the Supreme Court held that a debtor’s rejection of a trademark license does not eliminate the licensee’s right to use the trademark through the completion of the contract, settling a split in the Circuits. The Supreme Court also ruled that the case was not moot, despite the bankruptcy estate’s distribution of all of its assets, which may have important implications for the developing jurisprudence on mootness in bankruptcy cases.

On May 16, 2008, the United States Supreme Court decided Florida Department of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc. and ruled that debtors who sell property during the course of a Chapter 11 case prior to the confirmation of a plan cannot use Section 1146(a) of the Bankruptcy Code to exempt those sales from applicable state transfer and stamp taxes.

The question of what happens to an international arbitration when a party files for bankruptcy in the United States is arising with increasing frequency. In the United States, the public policy interests that underlie both bankruptcy and arbitration legislation sometimes clash on critical points. The federal courts have developed competing approaches to addressing these issues. This fractured caselaw introduces uncertainty at the intersection of arbitration and bankruptcy.

US Bankruptcy Code

This week, in a 2-1 decision affirming the District Court’s reversal of a ruling of the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that secured creditors do not have a right as a matter of law to credit bid their claim at an auction pursuant to a plan of reorganization where the debtor intends to impose the plan on its secured creditors through a “cramdown” under section 1129(b)(2)(A)(iii) of the Bankruptcy Code; i.e., a plan providing the secured creditors with the “indubitable equivalent” of their secured claim.

The scenario has become all too familiar in recent years: a borrower defaults on a loan and, when the lender pursues the loan collateral through foreclosure or other proceedings, the borrower files for bankruptcy protection. More often than not, when the lender appears in bankruptcy court to pursue its interest in the collateral, the borrower counterattacks with a host of state law lender liability claims.

Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LBHI) and its affiliated U.S. chapter 11 debtors (the “Debtors”) filed a joint plan with the Bankruptcy Court on March 15, the last day on which the Debtors who filed petitions on September 15, 2008, had the exclusive right to file a plan. As a result of the filing, the Debtors have an additional 60 days during which no other party may file a plan.

In today's low interest rate environment, the difference between a contractual interest rate and the federal judgment rate can be quite significant. It is not surprising, therefore, that this issue has become hotly litigated in cases involving solvent Chapter 11 debtors. Recently, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, in Colfin Bulls Funding A v. Paloian (In re Dvorkin Holdings), 547 B.R. 880 (N.D. Ill.