There are numerous reasons why a company might use more than one entity for its operations or organization: to silo liabilities, for tax advantages, to accommodate a lender, or for general organizational purposes. Simply forming a separate entity, however, is not enough. Corporate formalities must be followed or a court could effectively collapse the separate entities into one. A recent opinion by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts, Lassman v.

Summary: The Insolvency Rules 2016 will come into force on 6 April 2017. This article highlights some of the main areas of change.

The long awaited Insolvency Rules 2016 (the “2016 Rules”) were laid before Parliament on 25 October 2016, and will come into force on 6 April 2017. The Insolvency Rules 1986 (the “1986 Rules”) and all amending legislation will be repealed. The 2016 Rules aim to:

The linked Mintz Levin client advisory discusses a recent Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that held a “make-whole” optional redemption premium to be due upon a refinancing of corporate debt following its automatic acceleration upon bankruptcy.

In a recent decision (“Energy Future Holdings”) poised to have wide-reaching implications, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decisions of the Bankruptcy and the District Courts to hold that a debtor cannot use a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing to escape liability for a “make-whole” premium if express contractual language requires such payment when the borrower makes an optional redemption prior to a date certain.

Imagine you are the CEO of company sitting across from an interviewer. The interviewer asks you the age old question, “So tell me about your company’s strengths and weaknesses?” You start thinking about your competitive advantages that distinguish you from competitors. You decide to talk about how you know your customers better than the competition, including who they are, what they need, and how your products and services fit their needs and desires. The interviewer, being somewhat cynical, asks “Aren’t you worried about the liabilities involved with collecting all that data?”

A recent opinion issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois reminds us that corporate veil-piercing liability is not exclusive to shareholders. Anyone who is in control of and misuses the corporate structure can be found liable for the obligations of the corporation. The facts of this case, however, did not support personal liability for veil-piecing.

Summary: On 8 September 2016 Mr Justice Snowden handed down his judgment in Glenn Maud v Aabar Block Sarl & others [2016] EWHC 2175 (Ch) in which he considered how the court should deal with a bankruptcy petition where the petitioning creditor may have an ulterior purpose for seeking a bankruptcy order.

A client who is building a large mixed use development called me yesterday with a dilemma. He had received a letter from a local equipment supplier, who was on the verge of bankruptcy because the sub-contractor who had engaged him had gone into administration after the hire period had come to an end. He was pleading with my client to help him recover some £20,000 of hire fees still owed to him.

In an earlier blog piece we reported on the Third Circuit’s 2015 decision in In re Jevic Holding Corp. where the Court approved a settlement, implemented through a structured dismissal, which allowed junior creditors to receive a distribution prior to senior creditors being paid in full.

Today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trustputs an end to one of Puerto Rico’s multi-pronged efforts to deleverage itself.