We at The Bankruptcy Cave applaud the recent ruling by Judge Whipple of the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio, seeking to make the post-confirmation parties, processes, and procedures far more transparent. In In re Affordable Med Scrubs, LLC,[1] Judge Whipple declined to approve a disclosure statement for a debtor’s liquidating plan.
We’ve all seen it. The business opportunity looks enticing but is laced with risk about a potential bankruptcy filing down the road. As bankruptcy lawyers we are often asked how deals can be structured to prevent a potential bankruptcy filing.
Editor’s Note: On June 16, 2016, The Bankruptcy Cave gave you our summary of the controversial Sabine decision. At that time, post-hearing motions were pending.
Per 1 juli 2016 worden een viertal nieuwe wetten ingevoerd die van belang zijn voor bestuurders en ondernemingen.
On 1 July 2016 four important new laws applicable to businesses and directors will enter into effect.
De verjaringstermijn van na faillietverklaring vervallende rentevorderingen neemt pas een aanvang na het eindigen van het faillissement. Dat heeft de Hoge Raad op 24 juni 2016 geoordeeld in het arrest Boele's Scheepswerven II. Schuldeisers hoeven de verjaring van rentevorderingen gedurende een (eerste) faillissement dan ook niet te stuiten.
On March 9, 2016, Bankruptcy Judge Shelley Chapman of the Southern District of New York issued her decision on the Debtor’s motion to reject certain contracts in Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation’s Chapter 11 case.[i] The decision, which allowed Sabine to reject “gathering agreements”
A recent decision out of a New Jersey Bankruptcy Court highlights a loophole in the Bankruptcy Code which may allow Chapter 7 debtors to keep significant assets out of the hands of trustees and creditors.
A recent case from the 11th Circuit illustrates the procedural perils of litigation arising from a bankruptcy case but ultimately tried in the district court. In Rosenberg v.