When Financial Stress Turns to Distress–Restructuring Tools to Avoid Disaster
Parts 1 and 2: Chapter 11 Checklist and What Else Is in the Toolbox
Unlike the parenting technique that requires a misbehaving child to sit in a designated area for a set amount of time, Gymboree Corporation, the well-known San Francisco-based company that operates specialty retail stores of children’s apparel, will serve its time-out before Judge Keith L. Phillips in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
In Berryman v Zurich Australia Ltd [2016] WASC 196 it was decided that a bankrupt's entitlement to claim a TPD benefit under a life insurance policy is not an entitlement that is divisible amongst the bankrupt's creditors, and therefore such an entitlement does not vest in the Official Trustee in bankruptcy. Tottle J of the Supreme Court of Western Australia ruled that the bankrupt insured could continue an action in his own name to recover the TPD benefit. Life insurers may need to adjust their claims' payment practices in light of the Berryman decision.
A recent court ruling is a good reminder to health care providers that bankruptcy may not (as is sometimes suggested) be a safe harbor for providers in danger of being forced out of business by the loss of their Medicare and Medicaid provider agreements.
The Bankruptcy Code definition of “intellectual property” does not explicitly include “trademarks.”1 This has led to trademark licensees losing their rights to use the trademark upon rejection of the license in bankruptcy.
Almost every significant bankruptcy case eventually involves preference demands and litigation. Around this abundance of litigation developed a significant body of jurisprudence, to which Judge Sean Lane of the Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Court recently added in clarifying the ordinary course of business preference defense.
On May 28, 2014, the District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed an order from the bankruptcy court in Dishi & Sons v. Bay Condos LLC, et al.1, approving a sale of the Debtor’s assets, but found that the Debtor’s commercial tenant was entitled to remain in possession of the premises for the remainder of the lease at the specified rent.