Law Commons^™

A Bankruptcy Court’S Authority To Find An Implicit Waiver Of A Debtor’S Rights Under A Chapter 11 Reorganization Plan, Benjamin Ranalli

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

In chapter 11 cases, bankruptcy courts often deal with parties seeking reorganization or the approval of a reorganization plan. However, repeated instances of post-confirmation disputes have led courts to address the issue of whether bankruptcy courts retain jurisdiction in disputes that arise after the plan has been confirmed. It is settled that bankruptcy courts retain post-confirmation jurisdiction regarding certain matters in chapter 11 cases. Since reorganization plans are treated like contracts between parties, issues of contract law regularly arise in bankruptcy court in post-confirmation cases. One such issue is whether a bankruptcy court may authorize an implicit waiver of …

Circuit Split As To Whether Rejection Of Power Purchasing Agreements Are Subject To Bankruptcy Court Or Ferc Jurisdiction, Gabriela Zapata

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

Chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) enables troubled enterprises to be restructured, so that they can operate successfully in the future. Under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor in possession may reject a contract subject to bankruptcy court approval. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”), however, has “exclusive jurisdiction” over the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce, including power purchase agreements (“PPAs”). Accordingly, there is a dispute as to whether the rejection of a PPA is subject to bankruptcy court or FERC approval.

This memorandum addresses how courts have …

Claim Preclusion And The Problem Of Fictional Consent, Lindsey Simon

Scholarly Works

The doctrine of claim preclusion promotes fairness and finality by preventing parties from raising claims that already were (or could have been) raised in a prior proceeding. This strict consequence can be imposed only when the litigant received minimal due process protections in the initial proceeding, including notice and direct or indirect participation.

Modern litigation has caused a new problem. In some cases, a party may be precluded from ever raising a claim on the grounds of “fictional consent” to a prior court’s decisionmaking authority. Litigation devices have expanded the potential reach of judgments through aggregation and broad jurisdictional grants, …