Sometimes we blog about cases with unusual fact patterns. The cases don’t stand for any overriding legal principle. They might not have application beyond the parties to them. But they can make for good reading, giving insight into how judges analyze and rule on the issues at stake.
A recent decision in the District of Delaware is such a case. In re Mabvax Therapeutics Holdings, Inc., No. 19-10603, 2023 Bankr. LEXIS 1557 (Bankr. D. Del. June 15, 2023).
When he was appointed by the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Peter D. Russin probably did not expect to have to decide who has rights to the Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok handles associated with social-media-forward energy-drink brands. But that is exactly what Judge Russin did in a recent opinion related to the bankruptcy of “Bang” energy drink’s manufacturer, Vital Pharmaceutical, Inc.
We have blogged a fewtimes about the Supreme Court’s decision in Siegel v. Fitzgerald and its implications.
On May 8, cryptocurrency platform Bittrex filed for chapter 11 in Delaware. Bittrex’s first day filings emphasize that, unlike many other crypto filings over the past year, this case is not a “free fall” bankruptcy. In fact, a plan has already been filed, and the first day declaration said the debtors “took extensive action pre-petition to ensure full customer recovery, and plan to swiftly bring these chapter 11 cases to a responsible conclusion.”
Although in the Ninth Circuit the decision to revisit an order under FRCP 60 is “highly discretionary,” judges still must explicitly grapple with the relevant factors. That was the clear message sent by Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. of the Northern District of California when reviewing an appeal from the PG&E Corporation’s chapter 11 bankruptcy.
Persuading a bankruptcy judge to find “excusable neglect” after missing a filing deadline is usually a tough sell. You’d think it would be particularly hard when the party seeking relief was “belligerent and disrespectful to the Court and opposing counsel.”
We have previously blogged about Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, No. 21-908, a Supreme Court case concerning the scope of the fraud exception to the dischargeability of debts in bankruptcy. Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code exempts from discharge “any debt . . . for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained by . . .
The manufacturing sector in Germany is currently being hit hard. The reasons are massive increases in material prices and energy costs due to the indirect consequences of the Corona pandemic, disrupted supply chains and the Ukraine war. As a consequence of the economic crisis and insolvency of an important customer, Berner GmbH, based in Osnabrück, decided to continue its restructuring course within the framework of a petition filed on 23.03.2023 with the competent Osnabrück Local Court for the initiation of insolvency proceedings in self -administration.
Das produzierende Gewerbe in Deutschland wird derzeit erheblich in Mitleidenschaft gezogen. Grund sind massive Materialpreis- und Energiekostenerhöhungen aufgrund der mittelbaren Folgen der Corona-Pandemie, gestörten Lieferketten und dem Ukrainekrieg. Als Folge der Wirtschaftskrise sowie der Insolvenz eines bedeutenden Kunden hat sich auch die in Osnabrück ansässige Berner GmbH entschieden, ihren Restrukturierungskurs im Rahmen eines am 23.03.2023 beim zuständigen Amtsgericht in Osnabrück gestellten Antrages auf Einleitung eines Insolvenzverfahrens in Eigenverwaltung fortzusetzen.
Mit Entscheidung des BGH vom 27. Oktober 2022 (IX ZR 145/21) hat dieser die insolvenzrechtliche Streitigkeit zum Verwertungsrecht des Insolvenzverwalters entschieden. Ausweislich der Entscheidung erstreckt sich das Verwertungsrecht des Insolvenzverwalters nach § 166 InsO nicht auf sonstige Rechte, wie insbesondere verpfändete Gesellschaftsanteile oder abgetretene oder verpfändete IP-Rechte erstreckt. Der BGH lehnt eine analoge Anwendung ausdrücklich ab.
Keine Regelungslücke