As noted in a recent Distressing Matters post, the United States Supreme Court in In re Jevic Holding Corp. held that debtors cannot use structured dismissals to make payments to creditors in violation of ordinary bankruptcy distribution priority rules.

In a May 2, 2017 decision, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decided the fate of a stream of rental payments from the bankrupt owner of a residential complex. (In re: Town Center Flats, LLC, No. 16-1812, May 2, 2017, Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals) The case resembled a similar one, far more controversial and with a different result, from 1993. (Octagon Gas Systems, Inc. v. Rimmer, 995 F.2nd 948, 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1993) The Octagon Gas case roiled the factoring and receivables purchasing industry.

The Essential Resource for Today's Busy Insolvency Professional

The International Scene

George W. Shuster, Jr. WilmerHale Boston and New York

Benjamin W. Loveland WilmerHale Boston

George Shuster is a partner with WilmerHale in its Boston and New York offices. Benjamin Loveland is counsel in the firm's Boston office.

By George W. Shuster, Jr. and Benjamin W. Loveland

Upside Down in Chapter 15

Can U.S. Entities Qualify as "Foreign" Debtors in the U.S.?

Marsh Supermarkets Holding, LLC, and 15 of its affiliates, has filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 17-11066-BLS). The petition lists between $0 and $50,000 in assets and between $50 and $100 million in liabilities.

Practitioners Beware: When a client located in the state in which you practice law is served with a subpoena from a federal court located in another state, only the relevant federal court in your state (whether district or bankruptcy court) can adjudicate a motion to quash or otherwise modify the subpoena. A recent decision from a Colorado bankruptcy court, In re SBN Fog Cap II, LLC, 562 B.R. 771 (Bankr. D. Colo.

Searchmetrics, Inc., a search engine optimization services company based in San Mateo, CA, has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 17-11032-CSS). The Petition estimates Searchmetric’s assets between $1–$10 million and its liabilities between $10-$50 million.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a mortgage loan borrower’s federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and related state law claims because the defendant mortgagee was not a “debt collector” as defined by the FDCPA.

In so ruling, the Court also rejected the borrower’s allegations that the monthly statements the mortgagee sent to the borrower after her bankruptcy discharge were impermissible implied assertions of a right to collect against her personally.

On April 20, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a unanimous ruling that may terminate much of the litigation triggered by the bankruptcy of Tronox Inc. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The case is In re Tronox Inc.

Recently, the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Alabama joined with a number of courts in finding that a debtor's ability to sell their assets free and clear of any "interests" in property encompassed the right to purge the assets of a state labor department's right to transfer a company's unemployment experience rating to a purchaser of the company's assets.[1]

In December 2013, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held as a matter of first impression in Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), 737 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2013), that section 109(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, which requires a debtor “under this title” to have a domicile, a place of business, or property in the U.S., applies in cases under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code.