CreditSlips

One of the frustrations experienced by all business bankruptcy attorneys seeking engagement in chapter 11 cases can be traced to the vague language of Rule 2014. The rule requires the disclosure of information necessary to determine whether the professional’s employment is in the best interest of the estate. 

Credit Slips is very pleased that Professor Lois Lupica and Dean Nancy Rapoport will be joining us for a few days. Both of these names are probably already well known to many of our readers. Lois is the Maine Law Foundation Professor of Law at the University of Maine and a past guest blogger on Credit Slips.

Bankruptcy lawyers and judges often toil away in the lower reaches of the federal judicial over not-so-momentous issues such as the value of a refrigerator. When bankruptcy issues get to the Supreme Court, we tend to get excited. Boy, did that balloon get popped in Adam Liptak's New York Times column this morning about a recent tendency toward unanimity in the Supreme Court:

For a while, the battle over whether to split the JPMorgan Chase CEO and Chairman positions looked like the corporate governance battle of the year, but seems to have ended with a whimper, rather than a bang.  The media coverage of the issue, however, largely overlooked the unique, bank-specific aspects of corporate governance.  Specifically, what's at stake in the corporate governance of a too-big-to-fail bank like JPMorgan Chase is not just the share price, but also the public fisc.

A few weeks ago, the Supreme Court denied cert in a case called Law Debenture Trust Co. v. Charter Communications, Inc. (No. 12-847). The issue was whether the Second Circuit had correctly applied the doctrine of equitable mootness to an appeal in the Charter Communications bankruptcy.