Leslie Benedict: “Money isn’t everything, Jett”
Jett Rink: “Not when you’ve got it.”
Giant (1956)
Lending credence to the old adage “if it’s too good to be true, then it probably is,” the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that a secured lender was on inquiry notice of possible fraud by its borrower in impermissibly pledging customers’ assets to secure loans. And the penalty was steep—the Court determined the pledge to be a fraudulent transfer to the lender and the lender’s failure to act upon inquiry notice destroyed the lender’s good faith defense. As a result, the lender’s $300 million secured claim was reduced to a near-worthless general unsecured claim.
1. Adoption and entry into force of the Russian Federation Code of Administrative Procedure dated March 8, 2015, No. 21-FZ
It is a familiar scenario: a company is on the verge of bankruptcy, bound by the terms of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), and unable to negotiate a new agreement. However, this time, an analysis of this distressed scenario prompted a new question: does it matter if the CBA is already expired, i.e., does the Bankruptcy Code distinguish between a CBA that expires pre-petition versus one that has not lapsed?
It is a familiar scenario: a company is on the verge of bankruptcy, bound by the terms of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), and unable to negotiate a new agreement. However, this time, an analysis of this distressed scenario prompted a new question: does it matter if the CBA is already expired, i.e., does the Bankruptcy Code distinguish between a CBA that expires pre-petition versus one that has not lapsed?
In SGK Ventures, LLC, the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois ordered that the secured claims of two entities controlled by insiders of the debtor be equitably subordinated to the claims of unsecured creditors.
According to recent Italian case law Real Estate Funds may now enter as debtors into the debt restructuring agreements (so called “accordi di ristrutturazione dei debiti”) provided for by the Italian bankruptcy law.1 Reference is made to Milan Court Decrees 6 November 2015 and 3 December 2015 (the “Case Law”).2
The Ontario Court of Appeal (Court) recently affirmed the decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Nortel Networks Corporation (Re) (Nortel),[1] that the “interest stops” rule applies in proceedings unde
Use of cookies on this website We use cookies to deliver our online services. Details of the cookies we use and instructions on how to disable them are set out in our Cookies Policy. By using this website you agree to our use of cookies. To close this message click close. December 15, 2015 Since the promulgation of the Companies Act 2008 (the Act), there has been a lack of clarity regarding the effect of the reinstatement of a deregistered company in terms of the Act.
It is said that muddy water is best cleared by leaving it be. The Supreme Court’s December 4 decision to review the legality of Puerto Rico’s local bankruptcy law, the Recovery Act, despite a well-reasoned First Circuit Court of Appeals opinion affirming the U.S. District Court in San Juan’s decision voiding the Recovery Act on the grounds that it conflicts with Section 903 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, suggests, at a minimum, that at least four of the Justices deemed the questions raised too interesting to let the First Circuit have the last word.