When it comes to releases, plan proponents generally agree the broader the better.  But when plan proponents include far reaching and all-encompassing language in hopes of securing a release for every possible claim under the sun, they sometimes overlook the very claims for which they may actual want a release.  This was the case in a recent decision, 

♫ “Girl, it’s easy to love me now.

Would you love me if I was down and out?

Would you still have love for me?” ♫

-50 Cent, 21 Questions

Yesterday’s post discussed the recent appellate ruling in Sentinel’s bankruptcy, Grede v. Bank of New York Mellon Corp.

Recently, in SEC v. Miller, No. 14-4261-cv (2d Cir. Dec.

Generally when parties to a dispute work out a settlement they can breathe a sigh of relief and put their differences behind them.  OK – it’s a little more complicated than that when one of the parties is a chapter 11 debtor that must seek relief from the bankruptcy court to approve the settlement.  But what if a party objects?  Things get a bit more complicated.  And what if the objecting party has no apparent pecuniary interest at stake?  In that scenario, the settling parties can rest a little easier as the bankruptcy court in 

In the latest ruling in the long-running dispute in Sentinel Management’s bankruptcy case, the Seventh Circuit recently held that a bank employee’s suspicions about the source of the bank’s collateral should have put the bank on inquiry notice, thus precluding the bank from asserting a “good faith” defense to a fraudulent transfer claim that a liquidating trustee brought against the bank.

In a chapter 15 decision, In re Daebo International Shipping Co., Judge Michael E.

On January 19, 2016, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals 

“‘Two roads diverged in the woods and I took the road less traveled’ [sic] … and it hurt, man! Not cool, Robert Frost! … But what if there really were two paths?  I want to be on the one that leads to awesome.”
– Kid President (Robby Novak)

In