Sometimes different bits of legislation are, on the face of it, in conflict with each other. This is specially so when new law is introduced. The impact of new law on old law sets up contradictions, which the courts have to sort out. An interesting recent example arose in the context of business rescue.
The issue in this case was whether a payment of R389 593.49 by Ditona – a company being wound-up – to another company Eravin, was recoverable by Ditona’s liquidators as a void disposition or unrecoverable because, it was a pre-business rescue debt, which may not be enforced.
School specialty, Inc., files bankruptcy in Delaware seeking to sell substantially all of its assets
Introduction
Introduction
Introduction
USA, Delaware, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Fox Rothschild LLP, Bankruptcy, Liquidation, United States bankruptcy court, US District Court for District of Delaware
Introduction
Introduction
USA, Delaware, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Fox Rothschild LLP, Bankruptcy, Title 11 of the US Code
Introduction
USA, Delaware, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Shipping & Transport, Fox Rothschild LLP, Bankruptcy, Liquefied natural gas, United States bankruptcy court
Introduction
USA, Delaware, Banking, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Fox Rothschild LLP, Bankruptcy, Holding company, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (USA), United States bankruptcy court
Introduction
On October 17, 2012, Back Yard Burgers, Inc.
USA, Delaware, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Fox Rothschild LLP, Bankruptcy, Debtor, United States bankruptcy court