As a general rule, bankruptcy courts do not enforce provisions in organizational documents, loan agreements, or other prepetition contracts that purport to alter or waive the protections of the Bankruptcy Code. As with most rules, however, there are exceptions.
Recently, the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana stayed its own judgment pending an appeal to resolve doubt over the bankruptcy court’s authority to enter judgment on counterclaims related to a management agreement among Highsteppin’ Productions, L.L.C.
In a 2021 chapter 15 decision, In re Bankruptcy Estate of Norske Skogindustrier ASA,1 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that foreign law avoidance claims that are sufficiently analogous to claims under section 548(a)(1)(A)2 of the Bankruptcy Code—but not identical—may fall within the intentional fraud exception to the safe harbor provisions of section 546(e)3 of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Safe Harbor”).
In a decision that could have far reaching implications on the manner and level of secured creditor participation in bankruptcy cases, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that the deadline for filing proofs of claim under Bankruptcy Rule 3002(c) applied to all creditors – both unsecured and secured. Previously, secured creditors had relied on conflicting cases that permitted secured creditors to f
“Each player must accept the cards life deals him or her: but once they are in hand, he or she alone must decide how to play the cards in order to win the game.” – Voltaire
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York was recently presented in In re Rede Energia, S.A.with the question of whether a confirmed Brazilian reorganization plan for Rede Energia, S.A. should be enforced in the United States.
We at the Stern Files recently expressed our disappointment with the lack of more meaningful guidance in
Today, we follow up on our earlier post where we reviewed the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware’s decision in Energy Future Holdings
In a recent decision by the Second Circuit, Lucas v. Dynegy Inc. (In re Dynegy, Inc.), No. 13-2581 (2d. Cir. Oct.
Regardless of whether a creditor has a claim identified in a debtor’s schedules of assets and liabilities, generally speaking, most attorneys representing creditors in the context of a chapter 11 case will advise their clients to file a formal proof of claim with the bankruptcy court. Often this is just “belts and suspenders” and a matter of good practice but, if nothing else, a formal proof of claim will serve to protect a creditor’s rights and interests vis à vis the estate.