PG&E Corporation and its utility subsidiary Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) recently filed the largest utility bankruptcy in U.S. history, and the sixth-largest corporate bankruptcy ever.

Intercreditor agreements between secured creditors are intended to limit the potential for litigation and result in predictable commercial outcomes with respect to recoveries from collateral in enforcement actions and bankruptcies. Despite the extensive drafting efforts of sophisticated counsel to eliminate ambiguities in these agreements, the interpretation of intercreditor agreements has been the subject of substantial bankruptcy litigation.

When a court reaches a decision in a case, the law of the case doctrine generally provides that parties should not be able to relitigate the same issue in that case, and for the court to adhere to its prior decision.1 The doctrine does not, however, apply to every decision a court reaches. Two recent decisions by Judge Elizabeth Stong in the Brizinova chapter 7 cases in the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York explore when the doctrine may or may not apply in bankruptcy cases.

On Wednesday, February 20, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Mission Product Holdings vs. Tempnology, LLC. to decide what it means to “reject” a trademark license agreement in bankruptcy.

Can another vain attempt to mitigate a $1.5 billion mistake provide the occasion for a thorough review of the doctrine of earmarking? It did for Southern District Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn in the long tail on the General Motors bankruptcy case.

An official notice from the Judicial Conference of the United States was just published announcing that certain dollar amounts in the Bankruptcy Code will be increased about 6.2% this time for new cases filed on or after April 1, 2019.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed a trial court judgment holding a bank and its principal in contempt and sanctioning them for violating a bankruptcy discharge injunction, based on the findings in a parallel state court proceeding.

In so ruling, the Eighth Circuit held that the state court judgment did not preclude the bankruptcy court’s ability to enforce its own orders.

The Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) permits “a creditor [to] assert an unsecured claim for post-[bankruptcy] attorneys’ fees based on a pre-[bankruptcy] promissory note,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on Feb. 8, 2019. SummitBridge Nat’l Investments III, LLC v. Faison, 2019 WL 490573, *2 (4th Cir. Feb. 8, 2019). In a sensible opinion, the Fourth Circuit reversed the lower courts’ disallowance of an undersecured lender’s claim for legal fees. The court thus “join[ed] other federal courts of appeals” with its holding. Id.

This past Friday, February 8, 2019, a panel of the Fourth Circuit unanimously held that the Bankruptcy Code does not bar a creditor from asserting an unsecured claim for attorneys’ fees incurred after the filing of a bankruptcy petition if those fees are guaranteed by a pre-petition contract. In Summitbridge Nat’l Invs. III, LLC v. Faison, No. 17-2441, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 3967 (4th Cir. Feb.

Welcome to Part II of our series on the servicing of discharged mortgage debt (catch up on Part I). This part will discuss communications to discharged borrowers and evaluate various disclaimers that can be utilized.