Highlights
The Supreme Court held Section 363(m) is only a “statutory limitation” to accessing appellate relief in disputed bankruptcy sales that requires parties to take certain procedural steps to be effective
The Supreme Court also addressed mootness arguments and held that as long as parties have a concrete interest, however small, in the outcome of an appeal, the appeal should remain alive
The ruling provides insight as to how the Supreme Court may tackle the controversial doctrine of “equitable mootness”
USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Supreme Court of the United States, US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York
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