While bankruptcy is an option for those facing insurmountable debt, it is often difficult for the truly impoverished to obtain access to a chapter 7 bankruptcy. The 2005 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code made filing a chapter 7 bankruptcy more difficult, which increased the cost. Today, many people are just too broke for bankruptcy. While some legal aid programs assist with bankruptcy filings, not all do, and most limit bankruptcy filings to only those people who are in immediate danger of losing property. Otherwise, most programs would be overrun with bankruptcy cases.
Bankruptcy Rule 2004 allows the examination of any entity with respect to various topics, including conduct and financial condition of the debtor and any matter that may affect the administration of the estate. Does a subordination agreement that is silent on the use of Rule 2004 prevent the subordinated creditor from taking a Rule 2004 examination of the senior creditor? Yes, says an Illinois bankruptcy court.
In April 2019, the Institutional Limited Partners Association (“ILPA”) released a set of considerations for Limited Partners and General Partners with respect to General Partner-led secondary fund restructurings (the “ILPA Memo”). The ILPA Memo can be viewed here.
A controlling question of California law dealing with the interplay between State law presumptions of community property and “form of title” on which there was no controlling California precedent has been certified to the California Supreme Court by the Ninth Circuit.
In Brace v. Speier (In re Brace), 908 F.3d 531 (9th Cir.), the Ninth Circuit certified the following questions to the California Supreme Court:
HIGHLIGHTS:
The Bottom Line
In a prior blog post, “Making Sense of The Circuit Split on the Enforcement of Make-Whole Provisions in Bankruptcy,” we discussed the circuit split on the enforcement of a make-whole premium triggered by a bankruptcy petition. Shortly after that post was published, the U.S.
The Institutional Limited Partner Association (ILPA) has published recommendations for how “GP-led fund restructurings” should be organised. These transactions occur when a fund sponsor (GP/manager) introduces a secondary purchaser to buy assets out of one of its existing funds, typically into a new fund structure where the same GP is the manager. Such transactions are complex and inevitably throw up conflict issues. Investors regularly complain that GPs are short on transparency and slapdash with timelines when trying to do one of these deals.
It always amazes me when, after more than a half-century of Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) jurisprudence, an issue one thinks would arise quite commonly appears never to have been decided in a reported case. Such an issue was recently decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in an adversary proceeding in the Pettit Oil Co. Chapter 7 case.[1]