Plenty of ink has been spilled about how to apply the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Stern v. Marshall and the line of cases in which it sits. It is a challenging body of law for many reasons, but perhaps the most difficult reason is that the Court indicated that the scope of power that bankruptcy courts may be given today must be defined by reference to beliefs about the scope of judicial and other governmental powers at the time of the country’s founding, when divisions of governmental power were embedded in the U.S. Constitution.

Courts have applied various standards for determining when a “claim” arises for the purposes of the Bankruptcy Code, particularly in the tort context. A recent decision from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania illustrates that the standard may differ depending on whether the claim in question is a creditor’s claim against the debtor’s estate or a debtor’s claim against a third-party.

While rockstars such as Iggy Pop and Nikki Sixx of Mötley Crüe were infamous for outlandish rider requests while on tour, perhaps nobody is more notorious for their demands of concert promoters than Van Halen.

Practitioners generally identify “excusable neglect” as the standard that bankruptcy courts apply in determining whether to allow a creditor’s untimely proof of claim. A creditor who lets the bar date pass finds itself in the undesirable position of having to persuade the bankruptcy court that its neglect to file a timely proof of claim was excusable.

“I’m inconsistent, even to myself.”

-Bob Dylan

Last June we covered the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Baker Botts LLP v.

The Bankruptcy Blog previously published an extensive guide to evaluating and purchasing director and officer (”D&O”) liability insurance for individuals at the helm of troubled companies.  But what happens when a policy is in place and the directors and officers seek to obtain the proceeds of that policy to cover defense costs or related expenses? 

Finding out you missed an important deadline is the stuff nightmares are made of.  Even more so for attorneys, where letting a court imposed deadline pass without taking the requisite action may substantially hinder the rights of clients.  In 

“Once again, I’m not quite sure what that means.” – Bobby Boucher, The Waterboy

Cases analyzing rights under indentures – and the transactions holders and issuers contemplate (or not) under indentures – continue to gain attention in the restructuring world.  Some of those cases involve section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act (see our own blog’s recent posts) and payment rights under indentures.  Others, such