The hard work has been done – the plan has been negotiated and confirmed, the confirmation order has been entered, and holders of allowed claims (and maybe even interest holders) await their distribution under the plan. A plan, however, may require that creditors or equity holders take certain acts prior to participation in the plan distribution, or forfeit their right to participate.

Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, No. 14–116 (previously described in the December 15, 2014, Docket Report)

On May 4, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, holding that an order denying confirmation of the debtor’s proposed chapter 13 plan is not a “final” order that the debtor can immediately appeal. This holding could have a far-reaching impact on individual and corporate debtors in both chapter 11 and chapter 13 by in most instances eliminating their second bite at the apple in seeking confirmation of a plan.

What happens when a debtor, whose loan is pooled and securitized, files for bankruptcy? Are payments made to investors recoverable as fraudulent transfers or preferences?

Background: Grupo OAS, a Brazilian construction conglomerate linked to a massive corruption scandal (“OAS”), filed for Chapter 15 creditor protection in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on April 15, 2015, two weeks after entering bankruptcy in Brazil. If “recognized” by Bankruptcy Judge Stuart Bernstein, the Chapter 15 petition would, among other things, essentially bind OAS creditors in the United States to the restructuring terms approved by the Brazilian court overseeing OAS’s reorganization.

People are generally familiar with the concept that a party’s right to appeal applies to those orders that are “final.” A “final” order is one that resolves or disposes of the disputes between the parties. While an interlocutory order may be appealable at the discretion of the appellate court, the aggrieved party has no absolute right to appeal an order that is not “final.”

To Seal or Not To Seal: Access To Commercially Sensitive Information In Bankruptcy Proceedings

In what appears to be a matter of first impression, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently held that payments made to investors in a two tiered securitization structure commonly employed in commercial mortgage-backed securitization (“CMBS”) transactions are largely protected from fraudulent or preferential transfer claims by the securities contract safe harbor set forth in Bankruptcy Code section 546(e). Specifically, in Krol v.

Bankruptcy Court reinforces importance of parties’ intent in determining the nature of overriding royalty interests under state law.

In an opinion issued today, the Supreme Court held that debtors do not have the right to immediately appeal a bankruptcy court’s decision denying confirmation of a proposed reorganization plan. This decision resolves a circuit split, and confirms the balance of power between debtors and creditors in the plan confirmation process. As the Supreme Court explained, “the knowledge that [a debtor] will have no guaranteed appeal from a denial should encourage the debtor to work with creditors and the trustee to develop a confirmable plan as promptly as possible.”