Bankruptcy Judge Steven Rhodes ruled from the bench on December 3, 2013 (followed by a written opinion on December 5, 2013) that Detroit is eligible for bankruptcy protection, allowing the city to attempt to restructure $18.5 billion of debt. Thus begins the largest American municipal bankruptcy case. After nine days of trial, the judge ruled that although the city did not negotiate in good faith prior to bankruptcy, it was impossible for the city to do so.

“You cannot properly appraise the real seriousness of that situation unless you are right there in the city. Everything that frugal men and women put aside for years to save for old age, to get security for themselves –– every¬thing that they put aside to make the lot of their children a better one than their own, is now likely to be swept away. There is only one way that you can lighten the load of the municipality and that is to take its debt service off for the time being. Specifically, so that you will understand it, what is it in the city of Detroit?

Last week’s ruling by

The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware recently reversed a Court of Chancery decision declining to appoint a receiver for a dissolved Delaware corporation, Krafft-Murphy Company, Inc. (Krafft). The Chancery Court determined that a receiver was inappropriate because Krafft had no property for the receiver to distribute to potential tort victims. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that an unexhausted insurance policy is property of the dissolved company even after its three-year wind-up period under Delaware law.

On December 5, 2013, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan released its 143 page decision upholding the City of Detroit’s eligibility to be a debtor under chapter 9 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.  In re City of Detroit, Michigan, Case No. 13-53846 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. Dec.

A recent Third Circuit reversal paves the way for Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) lawsuits based on minor procedural mishaps in bankruptcy court. This contradicts the law in the Second and Ninth Circuits and in many district and bankruptcy courts that previously have found that participation in bankruptcy proceedings is not an attempt to collect a debt and thus not grounds for an FDCPA claim.   

Based on progress to date, a Model Act on Appointment and Powers of Real Estate Receivers may be making its way to a state legislature near you within the next couple of years.  The Committee appointed by and representing the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to prepare the model act met again in late September, 2013, to review the latest working draft of the

My how time flies in protracted bankruptcy litigation. More than four years ago, as I reported back at the time, the Bankruptcy Court in the Chapter 15 cross-border bankruptcy case of Qimonda AG issued its first decision on the application of Section 365(n) in that case. After an initial appeal, a four-day trial on remand, and another appeal, last week the U.S.

In re American Roads LLC, et al., 496 B.R. 727 (S.D.N.Y. 2013

CASE SUMMARY

An ad hoc committee of bondholders who executed an agreement with a monoline insurer securing claims under an insured unitranche containing a “no action” clause, bargained away their right to appear in the debtor’s bankruptcy case and, therefore, lacked standing to object to the debtor’s chapter 11 plan.

FACTUAL  BACKGROUND