We now address assets sales under Bankruptcy Code section 363. The statute allows debtors to use, sell, or lease their property in the ordinary course of business without court permission. But a debtor’s use, sale, or lease of property outside the ordinary course of business requires court approval. And courts will usually approve a debtor’s disposition of property if it reflects the debtor’s reasonable business judgment and an articulated business justification.

On February 28, 2019, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas issued an opinion in In re TM Village, Ltd. (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2019), holding that an unintentional, duplicate obligation remaining under a contract can render the contract executory, even if perhaps in contravention of the plain language of the contract.

The initial stage of a Chapter 11 filing is the most crucial and debtors must be ready for the tactics of aggressive creditors and stakeholders jockeying for priority in the restructuring proceedings. As part of this phase, “first day motions” are typically filed on the first day of a case. These motions are to obtain permission to take certain actions necessary to maintain the debtor’s business operations that cannot be taken unless the court first issues an order authorizing the debtor to take the actions.

Ruling from the bench on April 4, Bankruptcy Judge Alan Koschik of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied approval of a disclosure statement proposed by FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. because the plan it described was “patently unconfirmable.”[1]

Addressing unknown future claims in a chapter 11 bankruptcy involves two competing concerns: (a) providing a debtor with a fresh start and (b) providing an unwitting claimant with due process. These competing concerns clash when a debtor seeks to confirm its plan of reorganization, which is intended to provide remedies to all the debtor’s creditors and provide the debtor with a discharge of all pre-confirmation liabilities.

On February 25, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision holding that a trustee is not barred by either the presumption against extraterritoriality or by international comity principles from recovering property from a foreign subsequent transferee that received the property from a foreign initial transferee.

Last week, a Ninth Circuit panel held that plaintiffs in five related cases lacked standing to pursue their FCRA claims. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit held that the allegation that a credit report contained misleading information, absent any indication that a consumer tried to engage in or was imminently planning to engage in any transactions for which the alleged misstatements in the credit reports made or would make any material difference, does not constitute a concrete injury.

The Bottom Line

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York entered a decision confirming the applicability of the Court’s bar date order as it relates to a pension fund’s claim for withdrawal liability filed after the bar date, despite the fact that the withdrawal occurred after the deadline for filing proofs of claim.

What Happened?

A gasoline retailer defaults on its obligations under an ongoing Franchise Agreement that it has with a brand name in the oil & gas industry. What steps are available to the franchisor to protect its economic interests in that particular station or station(s)? How about if the franchisee/retailer files for bankruptcy protection? As the Energy Capital of the World, this issue is particularly relevant in Texas, home to thousands of retailers and dozens of the world’s top brands.

When a debtor files for bankruptcy, almost all proceedings to recover property from the debtor are automatically stayed by force of law. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). This provision, known as the automatic stay, is a central feature of the bankruptcy process, but uncertainty remains about aspects of its scope.