%1

The issue of nonconsensual third-party releases in chapter 11 plans continues to generate litigation. Releases and corresponding injunctions frequently insulate nondebtors — such as directors, officers or parent entities — from claims asserted by other nondebtors. Litigation regarding third-party releases has also involved jurisdictional issues, including those addressed in Stern v. Marshall.[1] In March 2017, the U.S.

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 outset.”[i]

On Sept. 22, 2017, the First Circuit issued a decision^[1] holding that the official unsecured creditors’ committee (UCC) appointed in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s^[2] Title III debt-adjustment case^[3] has an unrestricted right to intervene in an associated adversary proceeding (AP).

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. In particular, the court addressed the issue of whether the appropriate interest rate for unsecured creditors in a solvent bankruptcy case should be at the federal judgment rate or the particular rate specified in the creditor’s contract with the debtor (i.e., the contract rate).

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.[1] 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.[1] Indeed, finding an impaired accepting class may be the lynchpin for success in run of the mill single-asset bankruptcies, where debtors have a single large secured creditor and only a few small unsecured trade creditors.

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.