The Second Circuit recently held that a non-party to an assumed executory contract is not entitled to a cure payment (although it may be so entitled if is a third-party beneficiary of the contract). The result would have seemed obvious to bankruptcy practitioners. So, what in the world made the party pursuing payment take this to the Second Circuit? Well, surprisingly, as the Second Circuit decision shows, the answer is not found in the plain text of the Bankruptcy Code. And while it was argued prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, No. 21-908, 598 U.S.

As those in the cannabis industry are fully aware, the option of bankruptcy has not been available to cannabis or many cannabis-adjacent businesses to date. The courts have consistently indicated debtors who work in the cannabis industry or derive meaningful income from cannabis activity (directly or indirectly) cannot use bankruptcy, a federal mechanism, so long as marijuana remains illegal under federal law.

Since 1993, decisions out of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York consistently adopted the aggregate “rent approach” for calculating lease rejection damages in bankruptcy proceedings. But in Bankruptcy Judge Wiles’ recent decision in In re Cortlandt Liquidating LLC, he departed from the “rent approach” in favor of the “time approach,” which is based on the time remaining under the lease rather than factoring in the total or aggregate rent still owed under the lease.

A handful of recent high-profile court rulings have considered whether a chapter 11 debtor is obligated to pay postpetition, pre-effective date interest ("pendency interest") to unsecured creditors to render their claims "unimpaired" under a chapter 11 plan in accordance with the pre-Bankruptcy Code common law "solvent-debtor" exception requiring a solvent debtor to pay pendency interest to unsecured creditors. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit weighed in on this question in In re LATAM Airlines Grp. S.A., 55 F.4th 377 (2d Cir. 2022).

Exception from Discharge of Debts for Fraud Committed by Business Partner

On February 22, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, No. 21-908, 2023 WL 214441 (U.S. Feb. 22, 2023), where it resolved a circuit split in ruling that a debt based on fraud committed by, or a false representation made by, the debtor's partner or agent is nondischargeable in the debtor's bankruptcy case.

We have previously blogged about Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, No. 21-908, a Supreme Court case concerning the scope of the fraud exception to the dischargeability of debts in bankruptcy. Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code exempts from discharge “any debt . . . for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained by . . .

What happens when a creditor class fails or refuses to vote on confirmation of a Subchapter V plan? Does that prevent a consensual confirmation?

We have a recent answer from In re Creason, Case No. 22-00988, Western Michigan Bankruptcy Court (opinion issued 2/23/2023).

Facts

The Subchapter V Debtor is a sole-proprietor dentist.

Delaware Judge Brendan Shannon has joined calls for reforming Section 546(e) of the bankruptcy code, echoing concerns that the section’s safe harbor from fraudulent transfer liability has allowed investors to “loot privately held companies to the detriment of their non-insider creditors with effective impunity.”[1]

FTX. Blockfi. Voyager. Celsius Network. Genesis. Silvergate Capital Corp. Whether due to alleged corporate fraud or the waterfall effect of a downward spiraling industry, as the past year has unfolded more and more cryptocurrency giants—previously touted by pundits and celebrities as sound new age investments—have filed for relief under the United States Bankruptcy Code.

Debtors in possession or other estate representatives are required to pay U.S. Trustee fees during the pendency of the case. It is often assumed that other entities to whom estate property is transferred must also pay such fees until the case is closed. But as a couple of recent cases illustrate, it may be possible with careful drafting to curtail the reporting and payment of such fees once assets are transferred to a liquidating trust.