In a decision that demonstrates the potentially broad impact of the forthcoming Supreme Court decision in Bellingham, the Fifth Circuit held that bankruptcy judges may not “determine” non-core matters even where the parties consent. BP RE, L.P. v. RML Waxahachie Dodge, L.L.C. (In re BP RE, L.P.), No. 12-51270 (5th Cir. Nov. 11, 2013), see Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkinson (In re Bellingham Ins. Agency), 702 F.3d 553 (9th Cir. 2012), cert. granted 133 S.Ct. 2880 (2013) (set for oral argument January 14, 2014).

When a franchisee files for bankruptcy, a franchisor naturally has concerns over how the process will affect the parties’ relationship. Of particular concern is the possibility that the franchisor will be forced into a relationship with an unacceptable successor as a result of a bankruptcy judge’s decision to authorize assumption and assignment of the franchise agreement over the franchisor’s objection.

On September 24, 2013, in Farmers Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. NJPLIGA,      N.J. , 2013 WL5311272 (2013), the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that policy limits of solvent insurers must be exhausted before the New Jersey Property‐ Liability Insurance Guaranty Association ("NJPLIGA") could be responsible  for long‐tail claims under policies issued by insolvent insurers. NJPLIGA is a statutory entity created to provide New Jersey policyholders with protection when insurers become insolvent.

Last year, a U.S. bankruptcy court held that a bankruptcy trustee could settle a Financial ‎Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) suit against a broker-dealer by its former employee ‎seeking damages and expungement of alleged false and defamatory FINRA Form U-5 ‎termination disclosure language, over the objection of the former employee-debtor.2  Once a ‎bankruptcy case is filed by a former employee, the claims become property of the bankruptcy ‎estate.

In connection with the bankruptcy of a bank holding company (the “Bank Holdco”) and its operating bank subsidiary (the “Bank”), there are often different classes of creditors competing for one tax refund.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling that the funds in a debtor’s Health Savings Account (HSA) are not excluded from the bankruptcy estate and are not exempt. On the date of his bankruptcy filing, the debtor listed the funds in his HSA as an asset that should be excluded from the bankruptcy estate. He specifically asserted that under 11 U.S.C.

If all goes as planned, the Uniform Law Commission will finalize and promulgate a model act dealing with the appointment and powers of commercial real estate receivers at some point in 2015.  Last month, the Drafting Committee for this model act met in Minneapolis, MN to discuss and revise the latest draft.

In SimpleAir, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 11-cv-416 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 27, 2013), the court held that the attorney-client privilege associated with certain patents travelled with the patents where the patents were the majority of the assets owned by each transferor.

In a decision that comes as welcome news to some employers, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that an employer that incurred withdrawal liability to a multiemployer pension plan had not become a plan fiduciary by failing to pay the withdrawal liability, and could discharge that liability in bankruptcy.

The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA) is the most recent significant amendment to the United States Bankruptcy Code. Many issues have arisen since its enactment. Of particular interest to those practicing in the Chapter 11 arena involves the absolute priority rule in individual Chapter 11 cases. Courts have split over whether an individual Chapter 11 debtor can confirm a plan of reorganization over the objections of unsecured creditors without regard to the absolute priority rule set forth in section 1129 of the Bankruptcy Code (Code).