A Feb. 27, 2018, decision by the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a split in the circuit courts by clarifying that a bankruptcy trustee, creditors’ committee or other entity with standing may claw back preferences and constructive fraudulent transfers involving the purchase of securities, even though the transaction was effectuated by depositing funds or securities with financial institutions.

The permanent release of a nondebtor from a debt owed to a third party in a chapter 11 plan is barred per se in some courts and must meet a high standard to be allowed in others. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado in In re Midway Gold US Inc.

Bankruptcy courts “generally presume that good chapter 11 lawyers can and should negotiate without the help of an outside mediator.” However, some Chapter 11 cases are “so inherently complex” or “riddled” with “high levels of distrust” that “the presiding judge (or more rarely, the parties) views the appointment of a plan mediator as a virtual necessity from the

In the recent case of Calita Elston Robinson,[1] 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.