Last week, in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc.1 the Supreme Court settled a split in the circuit courts, unanimously holding that the safe harbor provision created by 11 U.S.C. § 546(e), 11 U.S.C.

The Second Circuit issued its much anticipated decision in Marblegate Asset Management LLC v. Education Management Corp., holding that “Section 316(b) prohibits only non-consensual amendments to an indenture’s core payment terms.” At issue is whether the phrase “right . . . to receive payment” forecloses “more than formal amendments to payment terms that eliminate the right to sue for payment.” The Second Circuit held that it does not.

The Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme provides that the shareholders generally cannot receive anything on account of their investment until all secured, priority and unsecured creditors are paid in full.

Who doesn’t love a good catch-all provision? In a world of infinite possibilities, attorneys often find themselves drafting language designed to encompass a plethora of contingencies. Are such efforts sometimes overkill? Perhaps. Nevertheless, given our imperfect ability to predict the future, such provisions are often necessary and appropriate.

When Can a Subsidiary Be Liable for the Actions of Its Owners?

Gary Ozenne seems to love bankruptcy court.  To wit, Mr. Ozenne filed, on his own behalf, seven bankruptcy cases over the course of five years.  Mr. Ozenne has three times petitioned the United States Supreme Court, on each occasion seeking bankruptcy-related relief.  Unfortunately for Mr.

“We’re riding down the boulevard,
We’re riding through the dark night,
With half the tank and empty heart,
Pretending we’re in love, when it’s never enough, nah.”

Determining how to increase or preserve a debtor’s liquidity is crucial to analyzing its deleveraging options. Companies with significant labor liabilities need to explore whether attaining cost savings through rejection of their collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) is a viable alternative.  The decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 

In the latest ruling in the long-running dispute in Sentinel Management’s bankruptcy case, the Seventh Circuit recently held that a bank employee’s suspicions about the source of the bank’s collateral should have put the bank on inquiry notice, thus precluding the bank from asserting a “good faith” defense to a fraudulent transfer claim that a liquidating trustee brought against the bank.

We know that our readers are busy during this time of year with vacation travel, holiday parties, and deals closing before year end.  And we know that it’s easy to fall behind on your essential bankruptcy reading.  Our gift to you this holiday season is this look back at our last six weeks of Weil Bankruptcy Blog posts, wrapped up into three neat little packages (or posts, that is).  So grab your glass of eggnog, and put your feet up, as we recap what you may have missed. 

Insiders:  A Perennial Favorite