In chapter 11 reorganizations, Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3003(c)(3) provides that “[t]he court shall fix and for cause shown may extend the time within which proofs of claim or interest may be filed” (commonly known as the bar date). For a creditor or interest holder to be subject to this bar date, they must have received notice to satisfy due process. A known creditor, one that is reasonably ascertainable, must receive “actual notice.” Simply receiving a court-approved bar date notice from the debtor is enough to satisfy this requirement for due process.

Recently, in GSE Environmental, Inc. v. Sorrentino (In re GSE Environmental, Inc.), on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held that the Chief Executive Officer’s claim for unpaid compensation payable in stock constituted an equity security rather than a general unsecured claim.

An involuntary petition under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code filed against a Mississippi casino developer was dismissed for bad faith, even though the petitioning creditors met the statutory requirements for filing the involuntary case. In In re Diamondhead Casino Corporation, the U.S.

One of the more appealing aspects of the U.S. bankruptcy process is the relative ease in which parties in interest may file proofs of claim. In years passed all it took was to mail in a simple form to the bankruptcy court or claims agent and now it is even easier with the advent of email and electronic claims uploading. This relatively easy process, however, often comes with a plethora of invalid or unenforceable proofs of claim.

Venue has long been a contentious topic highlighted by cases such as Enron and WorldCom to the more recent venue battle in Caesars. Recently, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas addressed this issue, and declined to transfer a pending bankruptcy case to the District of Delaware where cases involving the debtor’s indirect parent company and other affiliates were pending.

The recent decision from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, ECP Commercial II LLC v. Town Center Flats, LLC (In re Town Center Flats, LLC), gives us at the Weil Bankruptcy Blog a reason to revisit the issue of “absolute” assignments of rent.

As avid blog readers know, we’ve posted extensively on make whole issues, including several articles covering the ongoing make whole litigations in the chapter 11 cases of Energy Future Holdings and its affiliated debtors, which can be found here, 

When it comes to releases, plan proponents generally agree the broader the better.  But when plan proponents include far reaching and all-encompassing language in hopes of securing a release for every possible claim under the sun, they sometimes overlook the very claims for which they may actual want a release.  This was the case in a recent decision, 

Supreme Court to Resolve Circuit Split on Interpretation of Discharge Exception

Are you feeling a bit of déjà vu?  We certainly are.  As readers know, here at the Weil Bankruptcy Blog we’ve written extensively about make-wholes.  In two previous posts, What the Future Holds for Make-Whole Claims in Bankruptcy: Examining the Energy Future Holdings EFIH First Lien Make-Whole Decision –