ZipBy USA LLC v. Parzych, Case Nos. 24-1494, 24-1500, 24-1586 (1st Cir. 2026).
Rather than limiting recovery to restitution of the defendant’s gains, lost profits may serve as a permissible measure of damages under Massachusetts law, and expert testimony on lost profits in a corporate opportunity and fiduciary-duty case is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 when the expert is qualified, relies on sufficient data, and uses reliable methods, even if projections predate changed market conditions.
Palazzo v. Bayview Loan Servicing LLC, Case No. 24-2169 (4th Cir. 2026).
When viewed under a commonsense inquiry, mortgage servicer communications sent during a Chapter 13 case framed as informational, expressly disclaiming collection from debtors in bankruptcy, and providing payoff figures or tax information at the debtor’s request, would not be understood as efforts to obtain payment and do not constitute debt collection activity violating the automatic stay or the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Goldman Sachs Bank USA v. Brown, Case No. 25-1439 (4th Cir. 2026).
Bankruptcy courts may deny enforcement of contractual arbitration clauses for adversary proceedings asserting willful violations of the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k) when arbitration would inherently conflict with core purposes of the Bankruptcy Code, including centralized adjudication of bankruptcy matters, uniform enforcement of the automatic stay, use of specialized bankruptcy expertise, and the deterrent function of public punitive-damages awards.
GuangDong Midea Consumer Electric Manufacturing Co. v. Corelle Brands (Texas) Inc. (In re: Instant Brands Acquisition Holdings Inc.), Case No. 25-20119 (5th Cir. 2026).
Under Texas law, a master supply agreement that contemplates multiple, separately priced transactions through individual purchase orders may be treated as divisible so that each purchase order and its indemnity obligations constitute separate contracts whose rights can be retained by the debtor in Chapter 11 even when the overarching master agreement is assumed and assigned under 11 U.S.C. § 365.
Fetch! Pet Care, Inc. v. Atomic Pawz Inc., Case No. 25-1638 (6th Cir. 2026).
A franchisor seeking preliminary injunctive relief may be denied equitable relief under the unclean hands doctrine when clear, convincing evidence shows the franchisor engaged in bad-faith or misleading franchise sales practices directly related to the dispute, including aggressively marketing a new franchise model with undisclosed or obscured performance differences and optimistic earnings messaging.
USAA Savings Bank v. Goff, Case No. 25-1730 (7th Cir. 2026).
An arbitrator exceeds her powers under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4) when she ignores clear and unambiguous contractual language requiring a post-award review of punitive damages with a written, reasoned explanation before the award becomes final, as the punitive-damages award does not draw its essence from the arbitration agreement and must be vacated and remanded for further arbitration consistent with the contract.
Berkshire v. Goodman (In re: Berkshire), Case No. 26-6010 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2026).
An appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a) lies only from a bankruptcy court’s judgment, order, or decree and cannot be taken from a United States Trustee’s docket text that appointed a Chapter 7 trust, i.e., an item which is not an order of the bankruptcy court.
Sandler v. Modernizing Medicine, Inc., Case No. 24-6623 (9th Cir. 2026).
An arbitration agreement that incorporates JAMS rules clearly and unmistakably delegates challenges to the validity of the arbitration agreement to the arbitrator, and the presence of a severability clause authorizing a court or other body of competent jurisdiction to excise unconscionable terms does not negate the delegation or permit application of a state-law rule disfavoring arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.
