(Although it is not typically our practice to analyze personal bankruptcy cases if the issues do not also arise in corporate bankruptcy practice, we report on the decision discussed below because it involves the intersection of bankruptcy law and a particularly topical issue – same-sex marriages and domestic partnerships.)

In a recent bankruptcy case, Richard Lewiston unsuccessfully attempted to shelter his assets in the Lois and Richard Lewiston Living Trust (the “Trust”) from inclusion in his bankruptcy estate based on the Trust’s spendthrift provision. Here, the bankruptcy court looked to Michigan state law in applying the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and concluded the Trust property was part of Lewiston’s bankruptcy estate.

Facts about the Trust:

Section 303(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code allows an involuntary petition to be filed by three or more creditors who hold non-contingent claims totaling at least $15,325 more than the liens on the debtor’s property.  Those creditors then must prove that the debtor was generally not paying its debts as they came due within the guidelines

One of the main benefits of bankruptcy is the ability of a debtor to reject its burdensome contracts.  Although a debtor’s right of rejection appears to be relatively straightforward, section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code can raise a number of issues.  One such issue is whether the contract is executory.  If the contract is not executory, a debtor may not avail itself of section 365’s rejection powers.  Usually it is the debtor who argues in favor of the executory nature of a contract; however, this was not the case in 

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida recently held that, at a minimum, “surrender” under Bankruptcy Code §§ 521 and 1325 means a debtor cannot take an overt act that impedes a secured creditor from foreclosing its interest in secured property.

In so holding, the Court found that actively contesting a post-bankruptcy foreclosure case is inconsistent with a “surrender” of the property.

It is a basic feature of sales under section 363 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, that the purchaser takes free and clear of all claims and interests, such claims and interests attach to the proceeds of the sale in accordance with their priorities.

On September 8, 2015, a federal district court invalidated a portion of the Georgia post-judgment garnishment statute in Strickland v. Alexander, No. 1:12-CV-02735-MHS (N.D. Ga.). Senior Judge Marvin Shoob found that the statute was constitutionally deficient on due process grounds, insofar as it fails to require:

A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit stayed the part of a bankruptcy court’s sale order that would have “stripped” a commercial tenant’s lease from the casino property being sold to a third party. In re Revel AC, Inc., 2015 WL 5711358 (3d Cir. Sept. 30, 2015) (2-1).

Although almost eight years have lapsed since the chapter 11 cases of Tulsa, Oklahoma-based SemCrude L.P.

Cases analyzing rights under indentures – and the transactions holders and issuers contemplate (or not) under indentures – continue to gain attention in the restructuring world.  Some of those cases involve section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act (see our own blog’s recent posts) and payment rights under indentures.  Others, such