Fulltext Search
How Many Connections are Too Many? Bankruptcy Court Finds Multiple Attenuated Connections Not Enough to Warrant Disqualification of Debtors’ Professional

Introduction

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, United States bankruptcy court
Will We Have New Rules for Corporate Bankruptcies? Recently Proposed Legislation That Could Reform Chapter 11 Practice

Overview

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, US Congress
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
A Check is Transferred When It’s Honored, Not Delivered

Readers familiar with contract law undoubtedly know the “mailbox rule,” that an offer is accepted the moment a document goes in the mail.1 The United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit (the “BAP”) recently dealt with its own variant of the mailbox rule: does the issuance of a check constitute a transfer of estate assets on the date the check is delivered or on the date it is honored?

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Ninth Circuit, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
To Cap or Not to Cap: Ninth Circuit Vacates Order of District Court and Revisits Section 502(b)(6)

In this installment of “To Cap or Not to Cap,” which was previously featured on Weil’s Bankruptcy Blog in May of 2015 (see here), we reviewed a recent decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In Kupfer v.

USA, California, Arbitration & ADR, Insolvency & Restructuring, Law Firm Management, Litigation, Real Estate, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, US District Court for Northern District of California
Subjective Intent to Assume Unexpired Lease of Nonresidential Real Property Deemed Insufficient

Pursuant to a provision of the Bankruptcy Code familiar to readers of Weil’s Bankruptcy Blog (see our prior post, To Assume or Not to Assume, that Is the Question: What Act Constitutes “Assumption” Under Section 365(d)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code?), the United States District Court for the District of Delaware recently affirmed a bankruptcy c

USA, Delaware, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Real Estate, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Bankruptcy, Debtor, Landlord, Debtor in possession, US Code, Title 11 of the US Code, United States bankruptcy court, US District Court for District of Delaware
Second Circuit Slams the Door Shut on a Loophole in Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code

In a unanimous decision arising out of the Tribune Media Company bankruptcy cases, a panel of the Second Circuit held that the safe harbor under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, which precludes avoidance of certain transfers by a

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, White Collar Crime, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Federal preemption, Bankruptcy, Debtor, Leveraged buyout, Debtor in possession, Title 11 of the US Code, Second Circuit
ABI chapter 11 Reform Commission series: shallow harbors? An in-depth look at the proposed changes to the safe harbor provisions

In section IV.E of its report and recommendations of reforms to chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, the American Bankruptcy Institute Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 (the “Commission”) considered changes to the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbor” provisions.

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Debtor
Brazilian reorganization plan: fundamentally fair or wholesale trampling of creditors’ rights?

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York was recently presented in In re Rede Energia, S.A.with the question of whether a confirmed Brazilian reorganization plan for Rede Energia, S.A. should be enforced in the United States.

Brazil, USA, New York, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Title 11 of the US Code, United States bankruptcy court
Unfinished business: and the winner is . . .

In a unanimous decision, the New York Court of Appeals stuck a dagger through the heart of bankruptcy estates of failed law firms as it declared that profits earned on matters that former partners of the failed firm take with them to their new employers are not property of the former firm.  Those profits belong to the new firm that provides the legal services.

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