Supreme Court (SCOTUS)

The Supreme Court on June 27 ruled in the case of Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize a release and injunction that, as part of a plan of reorganization under chapter 11, effectively seek to discharge claims against a nondebtor without the consent of the affected claimants. Join this panel of experts as they examine the case and decision, and what it may mean for chapter 11 practice going forward involving nonconsensual third-party releases.

On January 14, 2021, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton that the mere retention of estate property after the filing of a bankruptcy petition does not violate 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3), which operates as a “stay” of “any act” to “exercise control” over the property of the estate. ABI Editor-at-Large Bill Rochelle will host a discussion with two leading bankruptcy academics who filed amicus briefs in the case, Profs. John Pottow of the University of Michigan Law School (Ann Arbor, Mich.) and Ralph Brubaker of the University of Illinois College of Law (Champaign, Ill.), to analyze the decision and its impact on future bankruptcy case law.

The Supreme Court has handed down three rulings during its current term that impact bankruptcy practice: The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on January 14 in Ritzen v. Jackson Machinery that an order denying a motion to modify the automatic stay is a final, appealable order “when the bankruptcy court unreservedly grants or denies relief.” In a per curiam opinion on February 24 in Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan v. Acevedo Feliciano, the Supreme Court has banned the term “nunc pro tunc” from the bankruptcy lexicon. The Court also ruled that a state court altogether lacks jurisdiction in a removed action until the case has been formally remanded. The Supreme Court ruled on February 25 in Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. that federal courts may not employ federal common law to decide who owns a tax refund when a parent holding company files a tax return but a subsidiary generated the losses giving rise to the refund. A panel of distinguished bankruptcy experts will discuss each of these cases to provide you with insights for your practice.

Developed for experienced bankruptcy practitioners, this webinar examines the Supreme Court's February 2018 decision in FTI Consulting v. Merit Management and the questions it has raised about what kinds of securities payments, trades, and M&A activity are still protected by the Bankruptcy Code's so-called "safe harbors" in the event of a bankruptcy filing. Our distinguished panel will review how the Bankruptcy Code protects certain financial activity from the automatic stay and "claw back" litigation, what the Supreme Court did (and did not) say in Merit Management, and how attorneys might structure trades and M&A deals going forward to maximize safe harbor protection.

In Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., the U.S. Supreme Court held that a bankruptcy court cannot approve a structured dismissal that provides for distributions outside the ordinary priority rules without the affected creditor's consent. This panel will discuss the survival of structured dismissals and class skipping settlements after Jevic. The panel will address how courts around the country have handled theses issues following the 2017 Jevic decision.