In the recent case of Calita Elston Robinson, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia addressed the issue of what the “interest at the legal rate” means under § 726(a)(5) of the Bankruptcy Code.
Profs. Richard M. Hynes (University of Virginia; Charlottesville, Va.), Anne Lawton (Lansing, Mich.) and Margaret Howard (Washington & Lee Law School; Lexington, Va.) recently published an article in the ABI Law Review on a groundbreaking study of chapter 11 cases for individual debtors. The report profiles a typical individual who seeks protection and relief under chapter 11. The profile looks like this:
Section 1129(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Code — requiring acceptance of a proposed plan from at least one impaired voting class — can often pose a unique challenge for single asset real estate debtors. Indeed, finding an impaired accepting class may be the lynchpin for success in run of the mill single-asset bankruptcies, where debtors
Since 2004, thirteen Catholic dioceses have filed for bankruptcy protection. Although several dioceses filed before 2004, filings since then have been driven by mounting sexual abuse claims against the dioceses. In response to these filings, claimants are assembling formidable unsecured creditors’ committees. For the most part, these diocesan bankruptcies have resulted in settlements. However, adversary proceedings have drawn out several of these bankruptcies. The ownership of church assets has led to many disputes over what belongs to the entities being sued and what belongs to other separate organizations. Therefore, while the bankruptcy process has helped these religious organizations with protection from impending liabilities, it has also provided sexual abuse claimants with a venue to build substantial creditors’ committees and challenge the availability of assets.
In Czyzewski v.
Is bankruptcy the new “black” in the retail industry? With the rise in retail bankruptcies, some commentators believe repeat chapter 11 bankruptcy filings are the “hottest 2017 retail trend.” “Chapter 22” is the designation given to these repeat filings.
In July 2016, the Seventh Circuit issued its decision in FTI Consulting v. Merit Mgmt. Grp. LP (FTI). There, the appellant asked the court to review the application of 11 U.S.C. § 546(e) (the safe harbor), which protects settlement payments made “by or to (or on the behalf of)” a broad range of financial institutions, intermediaries and brokers (collectively, financial actors) from many types of avoidance actions.
2016 was a busy year for the Business Reorganization Committee. We have an active and involved membership base, and took part in multiple panels, newsletters, publications and networking. We have terrific plans for 2017 and beyond in support of you, our members, in the arena of business reorganizations.
On June 30, 2016, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued yet another decision around the Johns-Manville asbestos litigation. Before the court was Graphic Packaging International’s emergency motion to enforce the confirmation and channeling orders in the Johns-Manville Corp. (“Manville”) and the Manville Forest Products Corp. (“MFP”) chapter 11 cases.
The “safe harbor” under § 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code continues to be a “hot topic.” The safe harbor is often invoked by shareholders to protect their “settlement payments” in a leveraged buyout (LBO).
Smiley Wang-Ekvall, LLP
Costa Mesa, CA
Lowenstein Sandler LLP
New York, NY
Cole Schotz P.C.
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
New York, NY
Cole Schotz P.C.
Special Projects Leader
Perkins Coie LLP