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.

Since April, two bankruptcy courts have refused to enforce limited liability company ("LLC") agreement provisions requiring the respective LLCs to obtain the unanimous consent of their members in order to seek bankruptcy relief.1 On June 3, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Delaware Bankruptcy Court") relied on federal public policy to invalidate an LLC agreement provision requiring unanimous member consent to file bankruptcy where the member at issue owed no fiduciary duties to the LLC and the member's primary relationship to the

  In a June 10 letter to the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight, the IRS said it plans to notify individuals whose assets were seized because of suspected financial structuring abuses as far back as October 2009 that they may be able to recover their assets from the govern

A recent decision from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas caught our eye because of the unconventional opening line:

“Summers are hot in Texas, so pools are a hot item. But not hot enough to help a pool installer [ . . . ] avoid bankruptcy” – Judge Tony M. Davis, United States Bankruptcy Judge.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently held that a confirmable Chapter 13 plan cannot both “vest” title to real property and “surrender” that property to a secured lender, and that the secured lender may refuse to accept the vesting in satisfaction of its claim.

Thus, the Court held that a debtor may not force the transfer of title in collateral to a secured creditor in satisfaction of the secured creditor’s claim, without the consent of the secured creditor.

The Bankruptcy Judges and Chapter 13 Trustees for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio have reviewed and approved a proposed District Wide Mandatory Form Chapter 13 Plan and proposed form Order Confirming Chapter 13 Plan and Awarding Attorney Fees. Currently, the Dayton, Cincinnati, and Columbus Bankruptcy Courts use different Chapter 13 form plans. The use of these different form plans makes it difficult for practitioners and creditors to keep track of the particular requirements for each court location.

A recent decision out of a New Jersey Bankruptcy Court highlights a loophole in the Bankruptcy Code which may allow Chapter 7 debtors to keep significant assets out of the hands of trustees and creditors.

Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 1501 et seq., provides the legal framework by which U.S. bankruptcy courts recognize foreign insolvency proceedings of companies that have assets and operations in more than one country. Congress added Chapter 15 to the Bankruptcy Code with the enactment of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. Like any new law, the application and limits of Chapter 15 are developing through jurisprudence.