Just one year after Lyondell Chemical Company (Lyondell) and Basell AF (Basell) consummated a nearly $20 billion merger of their businesses, the merged business of LyondellBasell Industries (LBI) “failed in a colossal manner.”1 As part of the bankruptcy process that followed, a court-appointed litigation trust (the Trust) filed suit for the benefit of unsecured creditors against numerous parties involved in the merger, bringing actual a

U.S. courts generally agree that the substantive consolidation should be applied sparingly, and even more so when substantive consolidation of debtors with non-debtors is sought. While many opinions address the grounds for substantive consolidation, very few cases address standing and notice issues when the sought for consolidation is of non-debtor entities. The Oklahoma bankruptcy court recently addressed these two issues in SE Property Holdings, LLC v. Stewart.

“You have been served” – the famous phrase uttered by process servers everywhere, may never be heard by a bankruptcy defendant.

Why?

The United States Supreme Court recently held that a creditor who files a bankruptcy claim on a time-barred debt does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). SeeMidland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, 137 S. Ct. 1407 (2017). In the case, the debtor filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code, and the creditor filed a proof of claim asserting that it was owed credit card debt. However, the credit card had not been used in over ten years, outside Alabama’s six-year statute of limitations.

The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Merit Management Group L.P. v. FTI Consulting Inc. to resolve a circuit split over the interpretation of Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, the “safe harbor” provision that shields specified types of payments “made by or to (or for the benefit of)” a financial institution from avoidance on fraudulent transfer grounds.

In Beem v. Ferguson (In re Ferguson), 2017 BL 101650 (11th Cir. Mar. 30, 2017), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit addressed the distinction between constitutional mootness (a jurisdictional issue that precludes court review of an appeal) and equitable mootness (which allows a court to exercise its discretion to refuse to hear an appeal under certain circumstances). The Eleventh Circuit ruled that an appeal from an order confirming a chapter 11 plan was not constitutionally moot because an "actual case or controversy" existed.

Federal appeals courts have been split on whether filing a proof of claim in bankruptcy on old debt, or obligations that have expired under a statute of limitations, violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In a victory for debt collectors and the debt buying industry, the Supreme Court clarified this issue on May 15, 2017 with its decision in Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, No. 16-348.

Under section 1111(b) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, a non-recourse secured creditor that holds “a claim secured by a lien on property of the estate” is granted recourse against the bankruptcy estate upon the filing of a chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. But what happens when there has been a post-petition foreclosure on such property, so that it is no longer part of the estate and the liens have been extinguished? Can the creditor still use section 1111(b) to assert a claim against the bankruptcy estate? The Ninth Circuit answered no in Matsan v.

Delaware Sports Complex, LLC, which operates an 180 acre indoor and outdoor sports facility and the 190 acre St. Annes golf course in Middletown, Delaware, has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 17-11175).

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the filing of a proof of claim in bankruptcy proceedings with respect to time-barred debt is not a “false, deceptive, misleading, unfair, or unconscionable” act within the meaning of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) when there continues to be a right to repayment after the expiration of the limitations period under applicable state law. The Court’s decision in Midland Funding, LLC v.