Bankruptcy Law

On April 19, 2023, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision, holding that section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code is not jurisdictional in terms of appellate review of an asset sale order, but, rather, that section 363(m) only contains limitations on the relief that may be afforded

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) codifies federal policy favoring the enforceability of contractual arbitration clauses.   Due to the FAA, courts will thus generally require parties to arbitrate a dispute if their contract so dictates. This is no less true in bankruptcy court, at least in connecti

Executory contracts under the Bankruptcy Code are treated uniquely, compared to other contracts.[1]  The Code permits debtors to assume or reject executory, but not non-executory contracts.[2]    This disparate treatment arises from, among other things, the need to protect a debtor from making an er

In a recent decision, The Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that despite NextEra Energy Inc.’s (“NextEra”) contractual undertaking to bear its own costs in connection with a merger, it had made a plausible claim for allowance of an administrative expense claim for these costs.[1]  This followed an

A California bankruptcy court has held that the right to seek attorneys’ fees for violations of the Civil Rights Act applies to fees incurred protecting a civil rights judgment in a bankruptcy proceeding.

This article is  reprinted with the permission of the American Bankruptcy Institute.

There is a split among the circuits as to whether a creditor’s continued retention of a debtor’s assets, seized pre-petition, violates the automatic stay.

In affirming a $2.7 million sanctions award for spoliation of evidence, the Second Circuit is sending a clear message to federal court practitioners (and bankruptcy litigants alike) that their clients must adhere to litigation hold instructions and comply with the discovery rules or suffer the conse

In re Relativity Media, LLC, 2018 Bankr. LEXIS 2037 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2018) presents a very informative discussion of the ethical pitfalls which may arise when a law firm concurrently represents adverse parties.

In the recent Supreme Court decision Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling, 138 S. Ct. 1752 (2018), one can almost hear Justice Sotomayor belting out the lyrics to Aretha Franklin’s classic, “all I’m askin’ is for a little RESPECT . . .

A recent decision from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York ratifies a procedure often used for the employment of financial consultants by corporate debtors and the applicability of the “Jay Alix Protocol” in connection therewith. In the Chapter 11 case of In re

In In re Anderson v. Credit One Bank, N.A., 884 F.3d 382 (2d Cir.

This article is  reprinted with the permission of the American Bankruptcy Institute.