Under the "single-satisfaction rule," although a bankruptcy trustee or a chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") may seek to avoid and recover avoidable transfers of a debtor's property from more than one transferee, the aggregate recovery is limited to the value of the property transferred. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit examined this rule in Jones v. Brand Law Firm PA (In re Belmonte), 931 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2019).

A critical bankruptcy litigation issue has finally been resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court. Until recently, litigants had been faced with the dilemma of whether to immediately appeal a denial with prejudice of a request for stay relief or wait until the underlying matter had been fully adjudicated. Given the uncertainty, parties remained unsure if they risked losing the ability to challenge the denial of stay relief by a bankruptcy court if they waited to appeal. Now it is clear that they will. In Ritzen Group v. Jackson Masonry, 589 U.S.

Introduction

In February 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion that, at first blush, appeared to severely curtail the scope of the transferee protections provided by Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, the “safe harbor” provision that shields specified types of payments from a bankruptcy trustee’s avoidance powers, including transfers “made by or to (or for the benefit of)” a “financial institution” in connection with a “securities contract.” A recent decision from the Second Circuit breathes fresh life into the defense.

On January 14, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision resolving the question of whether a motion for relief from the automatic stay constitutes a discrete dispute within the bankruptcy that creates a basis for a final appealable ruling, or whether it simply is a controversy that is part of the broader Chapter 11 case, such that appeals would not need to be taken until the conclusion of the Chapter 11 case.

So you (allegedly) violated a bankruptcy court order. Whether the debtor alleges you violated the terms of a confirmed plan, failed to provide certain notices required by the bankruptcy rules, violated the discharge injunction, or any other court order, you may be wondering what potential redress the debtor may seek. Although many violations of bankruptcy court orders and rules do not provide for a private right of action, many debtors seek to have their rights vindicated (in the form of the greatest vindicator, cash) through an action for contempt.

Kilpatrick Townsend’s Paul Rosenblatt and David Posner, bankruptcy partners, and Marc Lieberstein, a brand licensing and franchise partner, recently published an article in the New York State Bar Association Intellectual Property Section Bright

In 2019, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the finality of an asset sale previously approved by the bankruptcy court, providing valuable precedent in support of this core aspect of Chapter 11 practice. Fulmer v. Fifth Third Equip. Fin. Co. et al. (In re Veg Liquidation, Inc.), 931 F.3d 730 (8th Cir. 2019)

In Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, 589 U.S. ___ (Jan. 14, 2020), the Supreme Court (the Court) agreed with the majority of circuit courts and unanimously held that an order unreservedly, that is, without prejudice or condition, adjudicating relief from the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) is final and any appeal must be filed within the 14 day period under Rule 8002.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an opinion on December 24, 2019, In re Homebanc Mortgage Crop., No. 18-2887, 2019 WL 7161215(3rd Cir. De. 24, 2019) that has significant consequences for participants in repurchases transactions. The court affirmed the lower court judgment, that the securities had been liquidated in good faith.

Facts

In May 2019, with its ruling in Mission Products Holding Inc. v. Tempnology, the US Supreme Court resolved a nationwide circuit split regarding what happens to a trademark license when the trademark owner and licensor declares bankruptcy.