Recently, in GSE Environmental, Inc. v. Sorrentino (In re GSE Environmental, Inc.), on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held that the Chief Executive Officer’s claim for unpaid compensation payable in stock constituted an equity security rather than a general unsecured claim.

Claims disputes are “core proceedings” in bankruptcy cases that are subject to the general jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts, subject to exceptions for personal injury tort or wrongful death claims. Under 28 U.S.C.

Gary Ozenne seems to love bankruptcy court.  To wit, Mr. Ozenne filed, on his own behalf, seven bankruptcy cases over the course of five years.  Mr. Ozenne has three times petitioned the United States Supreme Court, on each occasion seeking bankruptcy-related relief.  Unfortunately for Mr.

“Sometimes, you can make no mistakes, do everything right, and still lose.”

Captain Jean-Luc Picard, Star Trek: The Next Generation (TNG)

This is the third post in our series on Judge Sontchi’s postpetition interest decision in Energy Futures Holdings, issued on October 30, 2015. Our first post in this series analyzed Judge Sontchi’s ruling that postpetition interest on an unsecured claim does not constitute a part of the unsecured claim itself.

As the adage goes, everything old is new again.  Just like old fads coming back into style, bankruptcy issues that first arose decades ago seem to present themselves again and again over the years, albeit with a different set of facts.  Such is the case with the bankruptcy of Johns-Manville Corporation and its affiliates.  Despite Manville’s emergence from bankruptcy in 1988, questions regarding the protections of the channeling injunction issued under Manville’s chapter 11 plan continue to present themselves today.  Much to the relief of one of Manville’s insurers, in a

A recent bankruptcy court decision out of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, In re Verity Health Sys. of Cal., Inc., Case No. 2:18-bk-20151 (ER) (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2019), is a good reminder of how difficult it is for a purchaser under an asset purchase agreement to get out of the deal by invoking a Material Adverse Effect clause (also known as a Material Adverse Change clause) (an “MAE”).

The United States Second Circuit has issued its ruling in the Momentive Performance Materials casesresolving three separate appeals by different groups of creditors of Judge Bricetti’s judgment in the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York, which affirmed

The scope of the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor for certain financial contracts has been tested again, this time in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Louisiana. The question this time was whether an ipso facto provision continues to be safe harbored if enforcement of that provision is conditioned on other factors – in this case, the debtor’s failure to perform under the contract.

For those interested in a quick read with some juicy facts and egregious acts by the relevant practitioners, check out the recent opinion in Church Joint Venture, L.P. v. Blasingame (In re Blasingame), where the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an order denying approval of a proposed settlement agreement was not a final order susceptible to appeal as of right.