Over the years, much has been written about the Bankruptcy Code’s treatment of small businesses, and the American Bankruptcy Institute Commission’s testimony to Congress this summer made clear that the existing law fell short of providing necessary relief for small businesses. For example, of the 18,000 small business bankruptcy cases filed between 2008 and 2015, less than 27% of those cases resulted in confirmed plans of reorganization. And these numbers excluded countless small businesses that, for a variety of reasons, did not or could not seek bankruptcy relief. See Robert J.

Since the 2005 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code, small business debtors have continued to struggle to reorganize effectively under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. On Friday, August 23, 2019, President Trump signed the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 into law in an effort to address some of these issues.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that payments made by a debtor’s customers to its lender converting a pre-petition loan to a post-petition loan constituted disbursements for the purposes of calculating the statutory fees payable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1930(a)(6). In re Cranberry Growers Coop., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21121 (7th Cir. July 17, 2019). This decision, coupled with the increase in the quarterly fees for the U.S.

In Trinity 83 Dev., LLC v. ColFin Midwest Funding, LLC, 917 F.3d 599 (7th Cir. 2019), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code does not moot an appeal involving a dispute over the proceeds of a sale of assets in bankruptcy. In concluding that section 363(m) does not moot such an appeal, but merely provides the purchaser with a defense in litigation challenging the sale, the Seventh Circuit overruled its prior decision on the scope of section 363(m) in In re River West Plaza-Chicago, LLC, 664 F.3d 668 (7th Cir.

In Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, 139 S. Ct. 652, 2019 WL 2166392 (U.S. May 20, 2019), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the rejection in bankruptcy of a trademark license agreement, which constitutes a breach of the agreement under section 365(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, does not terminate the rights of the licensee that would survive the licensor’s breach under applicable non-bankruptcy law.

In the United States, in a typical plain vanilla lending arrangement, if a counterparty files for bankruptcy, an automatic stay of enforcement actions is imposed that would prevent a lender from (i) foreclosing on the property of the debtor, (ii) terminating contracts with the debtor, (iii) commencing or continuing certain enforcement actions against the debtor or its property and/or (iv) setting off amounts owed under such arrangements (in each case unless a motion is filed and granted in the related bankruptcy case).

The District Court for the Southern District of New York has ruled that a trustee could not amend a complaint to add federal constructive fraudulent transfer claims because those claims were preempted by the safe harbor provision of the Bankruptcy Code.^[1]  The District Court found, under a plain language reading of the safe harbor provision, 11 U.S.C.

Defendants Honeywell and Ford Motor appealed the District Court’s decision affirming the denial of “unconditional access” to numerous exhibits submitted in connection with “administering nine asbestos bankruptcies.” The court had previously permitted review of the documents for three months with certain limitations.

The Bottom Line

In CMH Liquidating Trust v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, Case No. 16-cv-14434 (E.D. Mich. 2019) (“CMH”), the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan held that an insurance policy that was renewed post-petition was still an executory contract, and thus, a provision denying coverage for acts leading to bankruptcy was a prohibited ipso facto clause.

What Happened?

The Bottom Line

In In re PT Bakrie Telecom Tbk, Ch. 11 Case No. 18-10200 (SHL) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2019), the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York denied a noteholder group’s request for summary judgment seeking denial of recognition of a foreign proceeding under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code because the debtor had sufficient property in the United States, the appointment of the foreign representative was effective and the Indonesian proceeding was a collective one.

What Happened?