In a recent ruling likely to be of great interest to debtors and creditors alike, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (the “Court”) ruled in MC Asset Recovery v. Southern Company1 (the “Southern Co. Litigation”) that fraudulent transfer claims held by a bankruptcy trustee or debtor in possession under the Bankruptcy Code continue to be viable at the conclusion of a bankruptcy case, even if all creditors’ claims have already been satisfied in full pursuant to a plan of reorganization.

A company’s failure to meaningfully market its assets led to the dismissal of its attempted chapter 11 reorganization. As a result, a Massachusetts court held in a detailed opinion that an acquiring company was the successor to the company it acquired, and therefore liable for an $8.8 million debt.

In Litton Loan Servicing, LP v. Garvida, No. 04-17846 (9th Cir. BAP July 31, 2006), the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit addressed two independent but related questions: (1) what procedure is necessary to object to a properly filed proof of claim, and (2) who bears the burden of proof, and the correlative risk of nonpersuasion, with regard to a disputed claim.

Following the rule that swap agreements should be netted after contract termination, a New York bankruptcy court has held that such agreements also should be netted following rejection in bankruptcy.

“Although rejection of an agreement does not equal termination,” Bankruptcy Judge Arthur J. Gonzalez acknowledged in In re Enron Corp., 349 B.R. 96 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2006), “this does not affect the determination of…rejection damages. Termination of swap agreements generally requires that the parties’ positions be netted.”

“Rejection leads to a similar result,” he stated.

The United States Supreme Court has unanimously held that federal bankruptcy law does not preclude an unsecured creditor from recovering attorney’s fees authorized under a prepetition contract and incurred postpetition in bankruptcy-related litigation with the debtor.

A recent ruling of the Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California endorsed a path toward enforceability of prospective waivers of the automatic stay in certain circumstances. In short, such a waiver approved in a bankruptcy case may be enforceable in a subsequent bankruptcy case. This offers creditors a tactical opportunity to significantly better their position in such a subsequent case.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan recently considered the issue of whether a Chapter 7 trustee may bring a cause of action against a debtor for damages caused to the bankruptcy estate by the debtor’s alleged failure to comply with the debtor’s duties under section 521 of the Bankruptcy Code.

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. May 9, 2016)

The bankruptcy court grants the trustee’s motion to dismiss the creditors’ adversary proceeding. The claims asserted by the creditors were property of the estate and thus the trustee has the exclusive right to assert the claims. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorneys for Trustee: Foley & Lardner LLP, Geoffrey S. Goodman, David B. Goroff

Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Akin Gump Strauss  Hauer & Feld LLP, Robert J. Boller, Douglas A. Rappaport, Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Casey M. Cantrell Swartz, W. Timothy Miller

Venue has long been a contentious topic highlighted by cases such as Enron and WorldCom to the more recent venue battle in Caesars. Recently, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas addressed this issue, and declined to transfer a pending bankruptcy case to the District of Delaware where cases involving the debtor’s indirect parent company and other affiliates were pending.

On April 25, 2016, Judge Glenn of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a memorandum in an adversary proceeding in which neither of the two non-debtor parties apparently wanted to be in the Southern District of New York.