Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing to discuss two proposed bills, H.R. 200, the “Helping Families Save Their Homes in Bankruptcy Act of 2009” and H.R. 225, the “Emergency Homeownership and Equity Protection Act", that would allow bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of certain mortgages on principal homes during bankruptcy proceedings. H.R.

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 a recent decision, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the “Third Circuit”) affirmed¹ the bankruptcy court’s decision in In re KB Toys, Inc.,² and held that a claim that is subject to disallowance under section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code in the hands of the original claimant is similarly disallowable when that claim is held by a subsequent transferee because the section is applicable to “claims” rather than “claimants.” This holding is in contrast to a prior decision of the District Court for the Southern District of New York in

On Friday, Washington Mutual Inc. (WMI), the holding company that owned Washington Mutual Bank (WMB), filed a disclosure statement and amended reorganization plan with the U.S.

On January 6, 2009, Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) re-introduced H.R. 200, “Helping Families Save Their Homes in Bankruptcy Act.” First introduced in the fall of 2007 by Durbin in the Senate and by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) in the House, this bill has been the subject of three hearings, but faces opposition primarily from Republicans and representatives of the mortgage industry.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Wellness International Network Ltd. v. Sharif confirms the long-held and common sense belief that “knowing and voluntary consent” is the key to the exercise of judicial authority by a bankruptcy court judge.1 In short, the Supreme Court held that a litigant in a bankruptcy court can consent—expressly or impliedly through waiver—to the bankruptcy court’s final adjudication of claims that the bankruptcy court otherwise lacks constitutional authority to finally decide.

In an adversary proceeding filed in the American Home Mortgage Holdings, Inc. bankruptcy case, the Delaware bankruptcy court affirmed that triangular setoffs are not allowed under the Bankruptcy Code and cannot be modified by contract or under the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor provision. In re American Home Mortgage Holdings, Inc., et al., Adv. Proc. No. 11-51851 (Bankr. D. Del. Nov. 8, 2013). Two contracts were at issue – a swap agreement between a bank and American Home Mortgage Investment Corp.

Yesterday, Senate Republicans circulated a brief summary of the Financial Regulatory Improvement and Taxpayer Protection Act, a Republican substitute to the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 (S.3217) previously

Bankruptcy Court Hearing Regarding Sale of Lehman’s Investment Management Division

In In re Filene’s Basement, LLC,¹ the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware considered the rejection damages a landlord claimant was entitled to pursuant to Section 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code after the debtor rejected its lease as part of its reorganization plan.