A recent decision by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals addresses an issue previously addressed by only one other circuit court and should be welcome news for preference defendants asserting a “subsequent new value” defense while also having a § 503(b)(9) claim. In the case of Auriga Polymers Inc. v.
In enacting the Bankruptcy Code in 1978, Congress recognized, as public policy, a need to ensure that professional services provided to a trustee or debtor in possession were provided by skilled, competent professionals.
In an opinion issued on January 13, 2022, Judge David Novak of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia struck down non-consensual third-party releases  from a plan confirmed by the bankruptcy court.
In bankruptcy, a debtor-in-possession’s chief goal is to get its plan of reorganization confirmed by the bankruptcy court.
Seeking relief under the Bankruptcy Code is a common method of restructuring a business pushed into insolvency by tort claims. Under current law, filing a petition under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code allows a business to stay all litigation against it and propose a plan of reorganization that channels tort claims to a settlement trust for valuation and payment.
Since going effective on Feb. 19, 2020, much has been written regarding the restructuring benefits of a chapter 11, subchapter V case. Prior to its implementation, many small businesses were, from a practical standpoint, unable to benefit from chapter 11 due to the expense of filing and prosecuting a traditional chapter 11 case.
The approval of third-party releases in connection with the confirmation of a debtor’s chapter 11 plan before a bankruptcy court has become increasingly controversial and the subject of several recent district court decisions.
In May 2021, the ABI Journal examined the recently-added “reasonable due diligence” requirement of 11 U.S.C. § 547(b),  with an in-depth analysis of how such a requirement may shift the burdens of proof assigned in 11 U.S.C. § 547(g).
The term “mootness” refers to a category of related precepts that preclude a reviewing court from reaching the underlying merits of a controversy. While questions dog this doctrine’s constitutional and prudential forms outside of the Bankruptcy Code’s ambit, few doubt either’s general validity. However, within bankruptcy’s periphery, more substantive questions abound.
Hosted by the Business Reorganization and Mediation Committees
The topic of the most recent Commercial Fraud Committee call, discussed the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (UVTA), formerly named the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), which was amended (and retitled) in 2014 for the first time since its creation in 1984. According to the Uniform Law Commission, the amended Act, which strengthens creditor protections by providing remedies for certain transactions by a debtor that are unfair to the debtor’s creditors, addresses a small number of narrowly-defined issues and is not a comprehensive revision of the Act.
Public Securities and the Bankruptcy Plan Process: What Not to Do
The Asset Sales Committee will host John Hutton and Henry Jaffe as they discuss the GM successor liability decision, now on appeal in the Second Circuit, describing the arguments and positions taken by different parties on key issues in the case and discussing the potential impact of the ruling on appeal.
Tax-Sharing Agreements in Bankruptcy that Have Been the Subject of Recent Appeals Courts Decisions
The Business Reorganization Committee held a free committee wide call on Tuesday, September 23rd, at 4 pm ET. The topic was titled "Looking at International Insolvency/Restructurings Through the Bankruptcy Code and Beyond," and featured key speakers, including: Patrick Mohan (Moderator) of Reorg Research (Columbia, S.C.), Rachel Ehrlich Albanese of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP (New York), G.
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
New York, NY
Smiley Wang-Ekvall, LLP
Costa Mesa, CA
Cole Schotz P.C.
Wick Phillips Gould & Martin LLP
Cole Schotz P.C.
Membership Relations Director
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
New York, NY
Lowenstein Sandler LLP
Special Projects Leader
Perkins Coie LLP