One year ago when the German out-of-court restructuring regime, StaRUG, came into force, people hoped for it to be the beginning of a new viable rescue culture in Germany.

Whilst generally not public, it appears there have been substantially more professional articles covering StaRUG than cases themselves (believed to be around 10-20 for the year).

Every now and then, (i) something is blatantly obvious, but (ii) those in charge insist that what seems obvious is actually false. Such a disconnect breeds distrust.

That’s precisely what exists in our bankruptcy system. The U.S. Constitution requires that bankruptcy laws be “uniform . . . throughout the United States”:

There has been much discussion concerning the recent district court appellate decision in Purdue Pharma. See In re Purdue Pharma, Case No. 21 cv 7532 (Master Case), 2021 WL 5979108 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2021). We have been tracking developments relating to Purdue Pharma and issues concerning third-party releases: Purdue Pharma: Is Protection of Third Parties by the Automatic Stay an Oxymoron?

The opinion is from In re The Diocese of Buffalo, N.Y., Case No. 20-10322, Western New York Bankruptcy Court (entered December 27, 2021, Doc. 1487).

The Diocese of Buffalo asks the Bankruptcy Court to refer its Chapter 11 case and related adversary proceedings to mandatory global mediation–it does so twice. Its first request is denied. It’s second is granted . . . but with limitations.

This blog entry will be the first in a new, ongoing series of entries in the “Bankruptcy Protector” that will attempt to familiarize new attorneys and non-bankruptcy practitioners with the basic concepts of bankruptcy law of which all lawyers should be aware.

A recent Fifth Circuit decision released on December 7 sends a clear message to those seeking to challenge a trustee’s litigation funding agreement: you’d better be on solid ground when it comes to “standing.”

In the five-page opinion authored by Judge Jacques L. Weiner, Jr., the court found that the appellant-debtor in In re Dean lacked standing to challenge a funding agreement approved by a Texas Bankruptcy Court. The Fifth Circuit found that the debtor was not “directly, adversely, and financially impacted” by the funding agreement or the bankruptcy court’s order.

Welcome to the first edition of Restructuring Watch from the Akin Gump financial restructuring team in London. These editions will provide short and accessible updates on key legal developments in the European restructuring and insolvency world. 

In a case of first impression, the Eleventh Circuit held that Roth IRAs are excluded from Georgia debtors’ bankruptcy estates under the Bankruptcy Code and Georgia’s garnishment statute. In Hoffman v. Signature Bank of Georgia (In re Hoffman), 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 2119 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2022), the court reversed the district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s order concluding that the debtor’s Roth IRAs were not excluded from his bankruptcy estate.

For the second time in four weeks, a U.S. District Court has questioned the authority of bankruptcy courts to issue non-consensual third-party releases as part of a plan of reorganization. On Jan. 13, 2022, the Eastern District of Virginia vacated the confirmation order in the Mahwah Bergen Retail Group, Inc. (f/k/a Ascena Retail Group, Inc.) chapter 11 cases on the grounds that the plan contained impermissible non-consensual third-party releases. Patterson, et al. v. Mahwah Bergen Retail Group, Inc., Civ. No. 3:21cv167 (DJN) (E.D. Va. Jan. 13, 2022).

In Ko v. Messer, Chapter 11 Trustee, No. 20-02866, 2021 WL 4463029 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2021), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (District Court) rejected a contract purchaser’s argument that the early closing of a bank wire window excused the purchaser’s performance under a contract for the sale of real property.