The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in an opinion authored by Judge Thomas Ambro, has reversed two district court opinions and refused to allow a company to use a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing as a means to reduce interest on its debt obligations. Specifically, the court held that filing for bankruptcy would not excuse a debtor from its obligation for a “make-whole” payment otherwise due to its lenders.

Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, most retail bankruptcy cases involved at least some effort to maximize value by selling real estate holdings. The Bon Ton Stores, Forever 21, Sears, and Toys ‘R’ Us cases, among others, are perfect examples. These cases have, for the most part, achieved such sales under section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code with minimal resistance, typically on expedited time-frames.

In the past several years, the United States has seen a tidal wave of retail sector chapter 11 cases. The end result for most of those cases has been going out of business and liquidation sales. On March 11, 2020, Modell’s Sporting Goods commenced its chapter 11 cases seeking to follow a similar path taken by other retailers by closing all 153 sporting goods stores in a controlled liquidation. Unfortunately for Modell’s, the COVID-19 crisis hit the United States just as Modell’s commenced its liquidation.

Note — This post (plus many others) arrives thanks to the hard work of Sixth Circuit Appellate Blog intern extraordinaire Barrett Block, a rising 3L at UK Law.

We have discussed plan releases in prior posts. Oftentimes, disputes involving plan releases revolve around whether, and in what contexts, third-party releases in plans are appropriate. Recently, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the relatively unique question of whether releases in a confirmed plan are binding upon post-confirmation purchasers of the debtor’s stock.

In a prior post, we examined whether state-licensed marijuana businesses, and those doing business with marijuana businesses, can seek relief under the Bankruptcy Code.

Recently, the bankruptcy court presiding over the Energy Futures chapter 11 case issued an opinion analyzing the interplay between an intercreditor agreement’s distribution waterfall and payments to be made under the debtors’ multi-step reorganization plan. The court rejected a secured creditor’s argument that the intercreditor agreement’s distribution waterfall was triggered by one step of that reorganization.

In a prior blog post, we discussed the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ reversal of the bankruptcy court in In re General Motors. In its opinion, the Second Circuit held that a sale of assets without proper notice to potential plaintiffs with defect claims violated the plaintiffs’ due process rights and resulted in a sale to “New GM” that was not, in fact, “free and clear” of those claims.

What does it mean to “cure” a default in the context of a plan of reorganization? This question arises by virtue of section 1123(a)(5)(G) of the Bankruptcy Code, which requires that a plan provide adequate means for the plan’s implementation, including the “curing or waiving of any default.” On November 4, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals defined what it means to “cure” by holding that a debtor can only cure a contractual default under a plan of reorganization by complying with contractual post-default interest rate provisions.

On April 19, 2021, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted a motion (the “Seal Motion”) filed by the Intelsat S.A. debtors (the “Debtors”) to seal the hearing on the Debtors’ motion to extend exclusivity and motion to compel plan mediation.