The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida recently denied a creditor’s motion to compel the debtor to surrender mortgaged property and also denied the debtor’s motion to stay the case, holding that a chapter 7 debtor who indicates surrender of real property in his statement of intention is not obligated to surrender that property to the lienholder, whether or not the property is administered by the chapter 7 trustee.

Trump wins again!  But the winner is Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc. and not the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump.

On June 7, 2016, Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court ruled on a motion to dismiss Diamondhead’s involuntary bankruptcy petition. The Creditors who filed the bankruptcy admitted to the Court that their intent in filing for bankruptcy was to remove management and to obtain a recovery for their equity investments. The “Opinion” is available here. This is the second recent opinion issued in this case.

In In re Intervention Energy Holdings, LLC, the question before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware was whether an investor who “bought and paid for [one] Common Unit (including all rights related thereto),”

Recently on June 6, 2016, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court considered a motion to dismiss the Intervention Energy Holdings, LLC, et al. bankruptcy proceeding. On May 20, 2016, Intervention Energy Holding, LLC (“IE Holdings”) and Intervention Energy, LLC (“IE”) filed a voluntary chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Voluntary Petition”).

I sense a sea change in the recent Delaware decision in Intervention Energy Holdings, LLC, 2016 WL 3185576 (6/3/16), refusing to enforce a bankruptcy proofing provision of a Delaware LLC’s operating agreement. Until recently, the trend had been to accept the fundamental principles of bankruptcy remoteness, although courts sometimes found ways to avoid honoring anti-bankruptcy devices in specific cases.

The question of what constitutes “equal treatment” is a question as old as law itself. Though a favored topic by the Aristotles and the Rousseaus of the world, the question is not entirely esoteric. The concept plays a central role in the law of bankruptcy – courts occasionally describe the principle of equitable distribution between similarly situated creditors as one of the “pillars” of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 502(e)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code allows debtors to seek disallowance of certain types of contingent claims to avoid being twice liable on a single obligation. It has the added benefits of facilitating debtors’ efficient exit from bankruptcy and ensuring that unsecured creditors are paid in a timely fashion. Debtors commonly seek Section 502(e)(1)(B) relief for claims involving environmental remediations or tort lawsuits, for example personal injury actions.

In my May 26th post, I raised several questions that unsecured creditors in any Chapter 11 case should know the answers to and take action where appropriate.

In 2015, the Court of Chancery ruled upon the then novel issue under Delaware law as to what priority level advancement claims should be afforded in a receivership action. Then Vice Chancellor Parsons held that claims for advancement are not entitled to administrative priority, and instead are considered to be pre-petition, non-priority unsecured claims. For a link to a summary of the Court of Chancery decision, click here.