The Third Circuit majority upheld nondebtor, nonconsensual releases because they were part of a sale, making the appeal statutorily moot under Section 363(m).

Fourth Circuit says there’s nothing in the Bankruptcy Code requiring ‘anti-fraud’ provisions in a mass tort chapter 11 plan. The appeals court also holds that an ‘asbestos’ plan isn’t filed in bad faith when the plan gives an insurer no more rights than the insurer has under its policy.

Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Klein said it was ‘nonsense’ to argue that ‘a Bankruptcy Court lacks authority to permit survivor statements to be made to the Court and to the Bishop.’

For a sale ‘free and clear,’ nondebtors can be enjoined from suing.

With an exception, cases after Purdue are pointing toward approval of nondebtor releases where creditors are only allowed to opt out.

At least with regard to standing for objections to claims, Delaware’s Judge Craig Goldblatt believes that the Truck Insurance standard for chapter 11 also applies in chapter 7.

Revesting allowed chapter 13 debtors to retain property that was innocently undisclosed.

The ‘attenuated possibility of insolvency’ in the future does not establish ‘financial distress,’ Circuit Judge Ambro said, interpreting his own prior opinion.

Reversing the Fourth Circuit, the Supreme Court gives a flexible interpretation to traditional notions of constitutional standing in bankruptcy cases and appeals.

A creditor’s actual knowledge that a bankruptcy case exists isn’t enough for the creditor to be bound by a plan injunction, Delaware’s Judge Silverstein says.