Fulltext Search
Far and Wide: Bankruptcy Court’s Expansive Definition of “Property” Under Section 109(a)

Despite recent criticisms of venue selection and cries to limit or curtail various provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, a recent decision from the Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York demonstrates that the bankruptcy courts may continue to broadly interpret the scope of their jurisdictional reach and the powers and authorities granted to them under the Bankruptcy Code. In In re JPA No. 111 Co., Ltd., No. 21-12075 (DSJ) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Feb.

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Coronavirus
No Procedural Notice, No Problem: 11th Circuit Affirms Due Process Not Violated Where Debtor Provides Actual Notice

Overview

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, United States bankruptcy court, Eleventh Circuit
ASHINC or Swim Case Study: Lessons for Private Equity Sponsors on Risks Relating to Distressed Portfolio Companies (Part I: Continuous Contractual Breach Under a Loan Agreement)

In an opinion that mostly flew under the radar in 2021, Judge Christopher Sontchi from the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Court”) found investment firm Yucaipa American Alliance Fund I, L.P. and Yucaipa American Alliance (Parallel) Fund I, L.P.

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Private equity, Fourth Amendment
ASHINC or Swim Case Study: Lessons for Private Equity Sponsors on Distressed Portfolio Company Risks (Part I: Sponsor Breach of Company Loan Agreement)

In an opinion that mostly flew under the radar in 2021, Judge Christopher Sontchi from the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Court”) found a private equity sponsor (the “Sponsor”)1 liable (and, in some cases, not liable) under various contractual and tort theories in connection with actions the Sponsor took or did not take in its failed efforts to stave off a potential bankruptcy filing of its portfolio company, Allied Systems Holdings, Inc., now known as ASHINC Corporation (“Allied” or the “Company

USA, Company & Commercial, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Private equity, Fourth Amendment
The Bar Date Notice: Two Recent Cases Show Us There May Be More (Yes, More!) To Learn When It Comes to Providing Notice of a Debtor’s Bar Date

Overview

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Cybersecurity
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
Warning to Directors of Selling Companies: Breach of Fiduciary Duty Liability May Exist for Failure to Investigate and Ensure Solvency of Company Post-Closing and Propriety and Effect of All Related Transactions (But You Can Protect Yourself)

A recent ruling from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York sent shock waves through the legal and financial community, with some shouting that this “could be a gamestopper for the private equity business.”1 Although the ruling in In re Nine West LBO Securities Litigation2 breaks new ground and arguably narrows the protections available to directors under the normally-broad business judgment rule, there are clear lessons others can take from this saga to prevent a similar fate.

USA, Company & Commercial, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Private equity, Due diligence
Delaware Bankruptcy Court Declines to Bind Credit Bidders to the Mast

Section 363(k) of the Bankruptcy Code grants secured creditors the right to credit bid up to the full amount of their claim as a form of currency to bid to purchase assets securing their claim from a debtor in connection with a stand-alone sale of assets under section 363(b). In a recent opinion from the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, In re Aerogroup International, Inc., Judge Kevin J.

USA, Delaware, Banking, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Secured creditor, Debtor in possession, Third Circuit, US District Court for District of Delaware
Joint Plan Cramdown: Per Plan or Per Debtor?

The Bankruptcy Code’s cramdown provisions are a powerful tool for debtors in the plan confirmation process. Pursuant to section 1129(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Code, a plan may be confirmed if, among other things, “at least one class of claims that is impaired under the plan has accepted the plan.” Once there is an impaired accepting class, and assuming certain requirements are met, the plan may then be “crammed down” on all other classes of impaired creditors that reject the plan and those creditors will be bound by the terms of a plan they rejected.

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Bankruptcy, Debtor, US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Same As It Ever Was: Seventh Circuit Reaffirms Narrow Construction of Informal Proof of Claim Doctrine

We’ve previously commented on this blog on a number of decisions (see: (i) Too Little, Too Late: Ninth Circuit Holds Confirmation Objection Insufficient to Revive Untimely Complaint Objecting to Dischargeability of Debt, (ii)

USA, Company & Commercial, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, United States bankruptcy court, Seventh Circuit