Last month, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, on Aug. 15, 2014, ordered a bankruptcy court to vacate a final asset sale order almost four years after its entry because of insider misconduct. In re Global Energies, LLC, 2014 WL 3974577 (11th Cir. Aug. 15, 2014).

Opening statements concluded in the Detroit Bankruptcy trial yesterday, and as expected, the role of the art at the Detroit Institute of Arts played a central role. Although opening statements constitute nothing of evidentiary value, they obviously show the road map that the various sides intend to follow. Thanks to courtroom reporting, we have a number of clues about the themes that the lawyers intend to develop.

In earlier posts, we discussed rulings by two bankruptcy courts, one in Delaware and one in Virginia, in which the potential chilling e

On August 26, 2014, the Honorable Robert D. Drain, Bankruptcy Judge of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, issued several bench rulings (the “Bench Rulings”) in connection with confirmation of a plan of reorganization in the chapter 11 cases of MPM Silicones, LLC, et al.

Another bankruptcy court—this time in New York—has weighed in on the issue of whether “make whole” provisions are enforceable in bankruptcy. See In re MPM Silicones, LLC, et al. (a/k/a Momentive Performance Materials).

Vieira v. Harris (In re JK Harris & Co., LLC), 512 B.R. 562 (Bankr. D. S.C. 2012) –

A chapter 7 trustee sued a manager of three limited liability company (LLC) debtors for breach of fiduciary duty and to hold the manager personally liable for distributions made to members, including himself.

On August 26, 2014, in the case In re MPM Silicones, LLC, Case No. 14-22503 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (“Momentive”), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that secured creditors could be “crammed down” in a chapter 11 plan with replacement notes bearing interest at substantially below market rates.

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit contributed to a circuit split regarding jurisdiction in its recent decision in Pinpoint IT Services, LLC v. Rivera (In re Atlas IT Export Corp.).

Who Will Think of the Tenants: Split in Authority Regarding the Interplay Between Bankruptcy Code Sections 363(f) and 365(h)(1)(A)