The court-fashioned doctrine of "equitable mootness" has frequently been applied to bar appeals of bankruptcy court orders under circumstances where reversal or modification of an order could jeopardize, for example, the implementation of a negotiated chapter 11 plan or related agreements and upset the expectations of third parties who have relied on the order.
To promote the finality and binding effect of confirmed chapter 11 plans, the Bankruptcy Code categorically prohibits any modification of a confirmed plan after it has been "substantially consummated." Stakeholders, however, sometimes attempt to skirt this prohibition by characterizing proposed changes to a substantially consummated chapter 11 plan as some other form of relief, such as modification of the confirmation order or a plan document, or reconsideration of the allowed amount of a claim. The U.S.
One year ago, we wrote that, unlike in 2019, when the large business bankruptcy landscape was generally shaped by economic, market, and leverage factors, the COVID-19 pandemic dominated the narrative in 2020. The pandemic may not have been responsible for every reversal of corporate fortune in 2020, but it weighed heavily on the scale, particularly for companies in the energy, retail, restaurant, entertainment, health care, travel, and hospitality industries.
In 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit made headlines when it ruled that creditors' state law fraudulent transfer claims arising from the 2007 leveraged buyout ("LBO") of Tribune Co. ("Tribune") were preempted by the safe harbor for certain securities, commodity, or forward contract payments set forth in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code. In that ruling, In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litig., 946 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 209 L. Ed. 2d 568 (U.S. Apr.
Introduction
Business Bankruptcy Filings
Public Company Bankruptcies
Notable Bankruptcy Rulings
Legislative Developments
One year ago, we wrote that the large business bankruptcy landscape in 2019 was generally shaped by economic, market, and leverage factors, with notable exceptions for disastrous wildfires, liabilities arising from the opioid crisis, price-fixing fallout, and corporate restructuring shenanigans.
The year 2020 was a different story altogether. The headline was COVID-19.
Click here to listen to the audio.
Federico Zucconi, partner del dipartimento Finance, Projects & Restructuring, analizza gli effetti della normativa di emergenza volta ad agevolare l’accesso a nuova finanza da parte delle imprese, evidenziando le zone d’ombra rimaste nella disciplina anche dopo la conversione in legge del Decreto Liquidità.
Use, sale or lease of estate property outside ordinary course
Special rules for use of cash collateral
Jevic and distributions inconsistent with the Bankruptcy Code's priority scheme
Claar Cellars
The Bankruptcy Court's Ruling
The ability of a bankruptcy trustee or a chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") to use "cash collateral" during the course of a bankruptcy case may be vital to the debtor's prospects for a successful reorganization. However, because of the unique nature of cash collateral, the Bankruptcy Code sets forth special rules that apply to the nonconsensual use of such collateral to protect the interests of the secured creditor involved. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Washington examined these requirements in In re Claar Cellars, LLC, 2020 WL 1238924 (Bankr. E.D.
L’art. 1 del cd. Decreto Liquidità prevede come noto la possibilità per imprese di ogni dimensione di accedere a finanziamenti bancari assistiti in misura variabile da garanzia prestata da SACE.
Nel suo articolato, la norma si riferisce alla “impresa beneficiaria” quale destinataria del finanziamento; sono tuttavia numerosi i riferimenti al gruppo di appartenenza di tale impresa, principalmente ai fini del calcolo dei parametri ma anche in relazione ad obblighi (ad esempio l’impegno a non deliberare la distribuzione di dividendi deve riguardare tutte le società del gruppo).