Fulltext Search
Arbitrate? You Can’t Make Me! Rejection Trumps Arbitration, Says Texas Bankruptcy Court

Overview

USA, Arbitration & ADR, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Federal Arbitration Act 1926 (USA)
The Third Circuit Lets the Katz Out of the Bag: No Sovereign Immunity for California in the Post-Confirmation Venoco Dispute

The Executive Summary provided a short version of the facts. The next few paragraphs provide a longer version, or you can skip to the next section.

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, European Commission, Supreme Court of the United States
Prepetition Claim or Postpetition Claim? The Timing of a Claim When A Debtor’s Prepetition Wrongful Actions Continue Postpetition

Executive Summary

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Supreme Court of the United States
Bankruptcy No Sanctuary Against Government Enforcement Actions: NRA’s Chapter 11 Case Dismissed as Bad Faith Filing

Executive Summary

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Corporate governance
A Reminder That a 9019 Motion Is Not a Slam Dunk: Bankruptcy Court Denies 9019 Motion After Determining That Approving Certain Findings Required By Settlement Would Amount to Inappropriate Advisory Opinion

Introduction

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Bankruptcy
The Aftermath of a Complicated Breakup: Third Circuit Holds Stalking Horse Bidder in Terminated Transaction May Assert Potential Administrative Expense Claim Notwithstanding Disallowance of Its Termination Fee

Executive Summary

On March 15, 2021, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Third Circuit”) held that a stalking horse bidder may assert an administrative expense claim pursuant to section 503(b)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code for costs incurred in attempting to close on an unsuccessful transaction, even when the stalking horse bidder is not entitled to a breakup or termination fee.

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Due diligence
U.S. Supreme Court: Mere Retention of Property Does Not Violate the Automatic Stay

On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court held in City of Chicago v. Fulton, 592 U.S. __ (2021), that a creditor in possession of a debtor's property does not violate the automatic stay, specifically section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code, by retaining the property after the filing of a bankruptcy petition. The Court's decision provides important guidance to bankruptcy courts, practitioners, and parties on the scope of the automatic stay's requirements.

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Real Estate, Jones Day, Supreme Court of the United States
U.S. Supreme Court: Mere Retention of Property Does Not Violate the Automatic Stay

In Short

The Situation: Circuit courts were split on whether mere retention by a creditor of estate property violates the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay, under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3). The U.S. Supreme Court considered the question inCity of Chicago v. Fulton, in which the City of Chicago had refused to return debtors' vehicles after they filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy petitions.

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Jones Day
Officers of Selling Companies May Escape Fiduciary Duty Liability But May Be Required to Return Change of Control Payments if Company is Insolvent Post-Closing (Nine West Part 2)

While there has been much fuss over the recent ruling by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in In re Nine West LBO Securities Litigation1 due to its potential ramifications for director liability, as we explored in Part I of our series on this case here, court watchers have paid less attention to the court’s treatment of officer liability and the interes

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Private equity, Due diligence
Attention Buyers of Assets in Bankruptcy: How To Be A Good Faith Purchaser and Ensure Any Post-Closing Challenges Will Be Dismissed as Statutorily Moot Under Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code

Introduction

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP