Amended rules governing the issuance, service, and enforcement of periodic garnishments will go into effect on Oct. 1, 2015. The amendments will, among other changes, provide much needed protection to garnishees from the imposition of a default or default judgment resulting from administrative or ministerial errors and will also streamline the periodic garnishment process.

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued its opinion in Baker Botts v. Asarco, holding that professionals retained in bankruptcy cases cannot receive compensation for the costs of defending their fee applications. Even if you aren’t a bankruptcy professional, there are two things to keep in mind about this opinion. First, it won’t stop us restructuring professionals from doing our jobs. Second, the reality of commercial bankruptcy practice is often at odds with the pure textual analysis favored by the Supreme Court.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLC (PwC) won another victory in the MF Global litigation when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of claims brought by former commodities customers (the “Customers”) of MF Global Inc. (“MFGI”). This holding is important for its clear affirmation of the in pari delicto doctrine and as a visible limitation on claims by parties not in privity.

A recent decision by the District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina demonstrates just how important it is for parties asserting rights under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) to provide proper notice. Failing to correctly provide notice means that the creditor is not entitled to the PACA trust fund protections. In most cases, that will make the difference between getting paid in full and getting paid cents on the dollar.

On May 4, Judge Vincent Bricetti of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a ruling in the Momentive Performance Materials cases affirming the bankruptcy court’s confirmation rulings.  Key themes raised in this case of interest to distressed investors and addressed in Judge Bricetti’s ruling include 

In our last post, we discussed differences between “pay to stay” arrangements, which face stricter scrutiny in bankruptcy cases, and “Produce Value for Pay” plans, which provide incentives for executives based on strong corporate performance.  As promised, we now examine two cases that illustrate acceptable ways for companies to motivate their executives to perform through a Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

The Bankruptcy Code prevents an individual debtor from discharging certain debts, including, upon request of the creditor, debts for “fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity.” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4). The Seventh Circuit recently confirmed in Stoughton Lumber Co., Inc. v. Sveum, No.

The US Supreme Court has unanimously held that a debtor cannot void a wholly underwater second mortgage in Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings. The decision comes in the consolidated cases of Bank of America, N.A. v. Caulkett, No. 13-1421, and Bank of America, N.A. v. Toledo-Cardona, No. 14-163.

By no means do we think that we might reliably predict the outcome of such a politically charged case as King v. Burwell, No. 14-114, the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act.

In re Ramz Real Estate Co., LLC, 510 B.R. 712 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013) –

An undersecured mortgagee objected to a debtor’s proposed plan of reorganization on several grounds, including that (1) the plan was not approved by a proper impaired class and (2) retention of equity by the debtor’s members violated the absolute priority rule.