In 1994, Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code to, among other things, add section 1123(d), which provides that, if a chapter 11 plan proposes to “cure” a default under a contract, the cure amount must be determined in accordance with the underlying agreement and applicable nonbankruptcy law. Since then, a majority of courts have held that such a cure amount must include any default-rate interest required under either the contract or applicable nonbankruptcy law. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit endorses this view.

The recent Great Recession and the wave of bankruptcy filings that accompanied it presented a number of challenges for landlords and tenants. Yet, as the economy has recovered, we still continue to see restaurant and retail chains turn to the bankruptcy court’s for relief. Over the past year, a number of restaurants and retailers filed bankruptcy petitions. For example, American Apparel, Radio Shack, Anna’s Linens and Hot Dog on a Stick have sought protection from the bankruptcy courts.

“Each litigant [in the U.S. legal system] pays [its] own attorney’s fees, win or lose, unless a statute or contract provides otherwise.” Baker Botts LLP v. ASARCO LLP, 135 S. Ct. 2158, 2164 (2015) (6-3), quoting Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 560 U.S. 242, 252-53 (2010). A majority of the U.S.

In issuing its decision in Jubber v. SMC Electrical Products, Inc. (In re C.W. Mining Company), 2015 WL 4717709 (10^th Cir. 2015), the Tenth Circuit joined the Sixth, Seventh and Ninth Circuits in holding that a first-time transaction between the debtor and a creditor may qualify for the ordinary course defense of § 547(c).¹  In C.W.

*This article was initially published on The Street

In the high-profile bankruptcy case of Energy Future Holdings Corp. (“EFH”) a Delaware bankruptcy court recently called into question reliance on structural subordination as a way to protect a borrower’s assets from satisfying claims against an affiliated company. In the EFH bankruptcy case, holders of unsecured PIK notes issued by EFH subsidiary Energy Future Intermediate Holdings Company LLC (“EFIH”) sought to collect post-petition interest at the rate stated in the notes issued by EFIH.

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

The law governing postpetition interest in bankruptcy remains unsettled despite having been subjected to more than 100 years of debate in the federal courts. On October 30, 2015, 

The Ninth Circuit has overruled its own relatively recent decision and held that a debtor who sues for damages to redress a violation of the automatic stay may recover the reasonable fees it incurs in prosecuting the action, even after the stay violation is cured.

A recent and emerging trend in Chapter 7 bankruptcy cases is lawsuits brought by Chapter 7 trustees to recover from colleges and universities pre-petition tuition payments made by Chapter 7 debtors for their adult children’s post-secondary education. While many of these cases have settled, thus not resulting in reported decisions, there are four written decisions to date on this subject.¹ This article discusses the legal theory behind these avoidance actions and explores the universe of case law.