Yes, Gathering Agreements Can Be Rejected as Executory Contracts (At Least Under One Court’s Interpretation of Texas Law)
On May 4, 2016, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a bankruptcy settlement in the form of a tender offer did not violate the principles of the bankruptcy process. See opinion here.
In our latest installment of “Breaking the Code”, we take a look at a common section of the Bankruptcy Code that comes up in nearly every chapter 11 case: section 365(a). Section 365 contains one of the most powerful rights conferred upon a chapter 11 Debtor: the right to take a step back, evaluate its contracts and leases, and assume profitable agreements while rejecting unprofitable agreements.
A Supreme Court ruling this week should give creditors a powerful tool to collect their debts from debtors who try to transfer assets before seeking bankruptcy protection. The primary reason an individual may turn to personal bankruptcy is to protect assets from creditor collection while obtaining a “discharge” from debts. Such protection is increasingly necessary where an individual is being pursued by one or more creditors, particularly where those creditors may have obtained (or are about to obtain) judgments against the individual.
A recent case from the 11th Circuit illustrates the procedural perils of litigation arising from a bankruptcy case but ultimately tried in the district court. In Rosenberg v.
In a favorable ruling to creditors and bankruptcy trustees, SCOTUS issued its ruling yesterday in Husky Int'l Elecs., Inc. v. Ritz (In re Ritz) addressing a circuit split on whether “actual fraud” requires a debtor in bankruptcy to have made a false representation. The 7-1 majority found that “actual fraud” under §523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code to encompass fraudulent conveyance schemes, even when those schemes do not involve a false representation.
On May 10, 2016, the Missouri General Assembly passed the Missouri Commercial Receivership Act (MCRA), providing for significant changes to Missouri’s law on receiverships. Assuming that Governor Nixon signs the bill (which is almost certain), the law will become effective later this year. The significant changes to the Missouri receivership law in the MCRA are as follows:
Either from our prior posts here and here, or from the great posts from Stone and Baxter’s Plan Propon
On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its opinion in Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz, Case No. 15-145.
On May 10, 2016, the Missouri Commercial Receivership Act (the “Act”) was passed by the Missouri General Assembly as SB 578. The proposed Act provides a complete statutory structure for the appointment of receivers and the administration of receiverships within the state.
Currently, Missouri law regarding receiverships is largely based on case law, in addition to very limited statutory authority. As a result, receivership law can be somewhat confusing and inconsistently applied.