On November 15, 2016, Texas-based Xtera Communications, Inc. and seven of its affiliates filed voluntary petitions for chapter 11 bankruptcy relief in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Case No: 16-12577). XTERA is a leading provider of high-capacity, cost-efficient optical transport solutions that it sells to telecommunications service providers.
In Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in Administration) v Exxonmobil Financial Services BV(1) the High Court considered a range of issues arising from the application of the close-out provisions of the standard-form Global Master Repurchase Agreement (GMRA) 2000.
NJOY, Inc., an e-cigarette and vaping company headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona, has filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 16-12076).
Noble Environmental Power, LLC, and several of its affiliates filed for Chapter 11 protection in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 16-12055). Noble, a renewable energy company that owns and operates wind generation assets in New York and Texas, has its principal place of business in Centerbrook, Connecticut. According to the Debtor’s first day affidavit, downward trends in energy prices have made its debt obligations untenable, leading to the commencement of this case.
The Bankruptcy Deadline Checklist is a quick reference guide for those who handle bankruptcy cases including judges, lawyers, paralegals, credit managers, collection agents, professors, law students, and others.
On March 2, 2016, Sports Authority Holdings, Inc. and six of its affiliates filed chapter 11 petitions before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (lead case 16-10527). The cases have been assigned to the Honorable Mary F.
The recent judgment of Mrs Justice Proudman in Plaza BV –v- The Law Debenture Trust Corporation1 illustrates and extends a line of authorities in which the English courts have sought to narrow the scope of the mandatory application of Article 2 of the Brussels Regulation 44/2001. These cases are a reaction to the broad interpretation of the applicability and effect of Article 2 set out in the ECJ's decision in Owusu –v- Jackson2 , and attempt to confine the influence of that decision.