In Litton Loan Servicing, LP v. Garvida, No. 04-17846 (9th Cir. BAP July 31, 2006), the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit addressed two independent but related questions: (1) what procedure is necessary to object to a properly filed proof of claim, and (2) who bears the burden of proof, and the correlative risk of nonpersuasion, with regard to a disputed claim.

Following the rule that swap agreements should be netted after contract termination, a New York bankruptcy court has held that such agreements also should be netted following rejection in bankruptcy.

“Although rejection of an agreement does not equal termination,” Bankruptcy Judge Arthur J. Gonzalez acknowledged in In re Enron Corp., 349 B.R. 96 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2006), “this does not affect the determination of…rejection damages. Termination of swap agreements generally requires that the parties’ positions be netted.”

“Rejection leads to a similar result,” he stated.

The ability of a creditor whose claim is “impaired” to vote on a chapter 11 plan is one of the most important rights conferred on creditors under the Bankruptcy Code. The voting process is an indispensable aspect of safeguards built into the statute designed to ensure that any plan ultimately confirmed by the bankruptcy court meets with the approval of requisite majorities of a debtor’s creditors and shareholders and satisfies certain minimum standards of fairness.

Can the nondebtor party to an executory contract withhold services to the debtor postpetition if the debtor breached the contract prepetition?

Many view this as a settled area of bankruptcy law, and believe that the answer is “no” as long as the debtor is performing postpetition. Commentators of this view question how a debtor could ever reorganize if nondebtors did not have to perform under contracts postpetition, particularly if the debtor’s business is entirely dependant upon the contract at issue.

One of the most significant considerations in a prospective chapter 11 debtor’s strategic pre-bankruptcy planning is the most favorable venue for the bankruptcy filing.

In a decision last month in Whyte v. SemGroup Litig. Trust (In re Semcrude L.P.), No. 14-4356, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 7690 (3d Cir. Apr. 28, 2016), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that proving that a debtor was left with unreasonably small capital will not turn on either hindsight or a “speculative exercise” based on what might have happened if certain things were known at the time.

A recent ruling of the Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California endorsed a path toward enforceability of prospective waivers of the automatic stay in certain circumstances. In short, such a waiver approved in a bankruptcy case may be enforceable in a subsequent bankruptcy case. This offers creditors a tactical opportunity to significantly better their position in such a subsequent case.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan recently considered the issue of whether a Chapter 7 trustee may bring a cause of action against a debtor for damages caused to the bankruptcy estate by the debtor’s alleged failure to comply with the debtor’s duties under section 521 of the Bankruptcy Code.

In 2013 yieldcos began their exponential climb as a financing vehicle for energy projects. Yieldcos were touted as a transformational vehicle for unlocking value in electric generation assets and reducing capital costs. In 2015 the yieldco market crashed down to earth, dropping 43 percent in average value. The tailspin has continued into 2016.

For attorneys, the phrase “Don’t be a jerk” starts any class on professionalism or ethics. Not taking another attorney’s phone calls and failing to return those calls certainly qualifies as “being a jerk”. It is frankly, quite rude. But while being rude can be aggravating to opposing counsel, is it sanctionable? A Puerto Rican lawyer and her firm found out to the tune of $14,270.60 that it is.