Privacy issues are not new to corporate reorganizations; §§ 322 and 363(b)(1) were enacted as part of BAPCPA precisely to address such concerns.[1]  In an increasingly digital age, reorganizing debtors may possess a slew of personally identifiable information (PII), itself a term defined at § 101(41A).

Every dollar counts, and for debtors that are party to tax-sharing agreements (“TSAs”), significant dollars may be at stake. As the Sixth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals have demonstrated, when dealing with tax refunds and TSAs, it is not always clear that a debtor’s estate is entitled to every dollar.

[1]In some bankruptcy courts, the use of combined hearings on chapter 11 disclosure statements and plans in non-prepackaged, non-small business cases is expressly contemplated by local rule and relatively common.[2] Delaware, which is so often on the cutting edge of chapter 11

[1]In the latest installment of the Lehman Brothers subordination litigation, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that certain creditors’ claims were not claims for damages arising from “securities of the debtor,” and did not have to be subordinated to claims of creditors, notwithstanding that the debtor was treated as an issuer, for regulatory purposes, as an issuer of the mortgage-backed securities.[2]