The recent chapter 11 case of the storied New York law firm, Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, will raise a host of issues attendant to the dissolution of a modern day “big law” firm partnership.  Chief among these issues is likely to be whether the profits earned by former Dewey partners in completing Dewey’s open client matters belong to Dewey or the former Dewey partners.

On October 4, 2011, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that a contractual right of a triangular (non-mutual) setoff was unenforceable in bankruptcy, even though the contract was safe harbored. In re Lehman Brothers, Inc., No. 08-01420 (JMP), 2011 WL 4553015 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2011).

In a recent decision in the chapter 11 case of WestPoint Stevens, Inc.,1 the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit interpreted section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code to render an appeal of sale under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code statutorily moot. The Second Circuit held that because the Bankruptcy Court had not stayed the order authorizing the sale, a stay of only one aspect of the sale rendered moot of the sale in its entirety.

As the economy boomed in 2005-2007 and leverage increased to staggering levels, LBOs took a prominent place in the deal economy. During that time, investors completed 313 LBOs in the United States for approximately $630 billion.1 Following the recent economic downturn, many of those LBOs have become sources of controversy in a number of bankruptcies and restructurings - prominent examples include Tribune Co. and Lyondell Chemical Co.

In Hutson v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.

In recent opinions, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Seventh Circuits have revisited the doctrine of equitable subordination and have underscored the requirement that, before a court can equitably subordinate a creditor’s claim, the court must find that other creditors have been harmed by the actions of the creditor. Importantly, both decisions stress that equitable subordination is meant to be remedial and not punitive, and may not be imposed merely because a creditor has engaged in misconduct.

On June 16th, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision that is likely to have a significant impact on how debtors will sell assets in bankruptcy. InFlorida Department of Revenue v.

In UPS Capital Business Credit v. Gencarelli (In re Gencarelli),1 the First Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether a secured creditor is entitled to collect a prepayment penalty from a solvent debtor. The Court found that the secured creditor could collect the penalty, whether or not it is reasonable, so long as the penalty is enforceable under state law. The Court reasoned that any other holding would leave open the possibility that an unsecured creditor could recover more from a solvent estate than a secured creditor.

Background

On March 11, 2016, Judge Christopher Sontchi of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued an opinion in the Energy Future Holdings bankruptcy that resolved an intercreditor dispute over $90 million in proceeds to be distributed under the plan of reorganization.

On the afternoon of July 18, 2013, the City of Detroit filed its highly anticipated petition for relief under Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. This marks the largest municipal bankruptcy filing in United States history.¹As a result of the Chapter 9 filing, all actions by creditors to collect prepetition claims against the City are enjoined through the imposition of an automatic stay, except for the application of special revenues pledged to indebtedness.