When a contract is called a lease and has some characteristics of a lease, but operates to grant the lessee the exclusive right to mine and remove coal from the premises, how should the contract be treated in bankruptcy?  In a 

Bankruptcy Judge Christopher S. Sontchi recently ruled in the Energy Future Holdings case¹ that the debtor will not be required to pay the $431 million “make whole” demanded by bondholders upon the debtor’s early payment of the bonds.²

In re Walker, 526 B.R. 187 (E.D. La. 2015) –

The bankruptcy court (1) denied a mortgage lender’s request to file a late amendment to a proof of claim that had been filed on its behalf by the debtor and (2) confirmed the debtor’s proposed plan over the mortgagee’s objection that the plan payments were not sufficient to cure the actual arrearage. The lender appealed to the district court.

On July 13, 2015, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York refined the qualifications of “foreign representative” for purposes of granting recognition in a Chapter 15 proceeding.[1]

Interested chapter 11 plan investors, beware. A recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that even after the chapter 11 plan has been confirmed and substantially consummated and your money has been invested, an appeal can go forward even if a victory for the appellants would change the chapter 11 plan terms on which you relied and substantially diminish the value of your investment.

When is an agreement a true lease entitling the nondebtor lessee to possessory protections under section 365(h) of the Bankruptcy Code?  The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey addressed this issue in the 

Seeking to recharacterize a debt claim as an equity contribution to the debtor through the equitable powers of the bankruptcy court (something we’ve written about quite a bit in our blog) is one way to reduce creditor claims against the bankruptcy estate, but only in certain circuits.

On June 29, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, which held that claims asserted by counterparties in relation to bilateral repurchase agreements do not qualify for treatment as customer claims under the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (“SIPA”).

On July 13, 2015, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware issued a memorandum opinion in Huron Consulting Services, LLC v. Physiotherapy Holdings, Inc. et al., Civ. No. 14-693-LPS.  Chief Judge Leonard P.

Although almost all of an individual debtor’s assets become property of the estate upon a bankruptcy filing, certain exceptions exist to the rule at both the federal and state level.  In some jurisdictions, funds held for a debtor in retirement plans are exempt assets.  An open question, however, is whether payments distributed from such plans prior to the petition date are also exempt assets.  The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently held in