Fulltext Search

EBH Topco, LLC, along with thirty-one (31) subsidiaries and affiliates, has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 18-11212).

Enduro Resource Partners LLC, along with five subsidiaries and affiliates, has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 18-11174).

Nighthawk Production LLC and Oilquest USA LLC—affiliates of Nighthawk Royalties LLC, et al. (Lead Case No. 18-10989)—have filed petitions for relief under Chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. Cole Schotz’s coverage of Nighthawk’s filing can be found here.

The Rockport Company, LLC, along with nine (9) affiliates and subsidiaries, has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 18-11145). Rockport, based in West Newton, MA, is a designer, distributor and retailer of comfort footwear in more than fifty (50) markets worldwide.

Arecont Vision Holdings, LLC, along with two affiliates and subsidiaries, has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 18-11142). Arecont, based in Glendale, CA, is a developer and manufacturer of megapixel camera technology for security and surveillance use.

On February 27, 2018, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split regarding the proper application of the safe harbor set forth in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, a provision that prohibits the avoidance of a transfer if the transfer was made in connection with a securities contract and made by or to (or for the benefit of) certain qualified entities, including a financial institution.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that section 1129(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Code – a provision which, in effect, prohibits confirmation of a plan unless the plan has been accepted by at least one impaired class of claims – applies on “per plan” rather than a “per debtor” basis, even when the plan at issue covers multiple debtors. In re Transwest Resort Properties, Inc., 2018 WL 615431 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2018). The Court is the first circuit court to address the issue.

Some six years after the United States Supreme Court decided Stern v. Marshall, courts continue to grapple with the decision’s meaning and how much it curtails the exercise of bankruptcy court jurisdiction.[1] The U.S.

Traditional DIP Order Carve Outs Do Not Cap the Administrative Claims of Committee Professionals