Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code protects purchasers of assets in a bankruptcy sale. The provision promotes finality of bankruptcy court orders approving sales and is intended to maximize the value that a debtor or bankruptcy trustee is able to realize in a sale of bankruptcy estate assets by providing third-party purchasers with certainty that the validity of a bankruptcy sale will not be subject to subsequent challenges.
In its decision in In re Brandt, the court seems to draw a clear line: No post-petition add-ons for attorneys’ fees and costs when a secured claim arises from a judgment lien.
The University of Georgia, through the University’s athletic association (UGAA), is seeking damages totaling $390,000 against a former football player, Damon Wilson II, after he elected to transfer to Missouri following the 2024 season. The demand stems from a clause in Wilson’s NIL contract that required him to forfeit the balance of his agreement if he transferred to another school.
Am 4. Februar 2025 wurde der neueste Entwurf des geänderten Konkursgesetzes („Entwurf“) vom Obersten Volksgerichtshof („SPC“) zur öffentlichen Stellungnahme veröffentlicht. Der Entwurf soll das geltende Konkursgesetz Nr. 51/2014/QH13 vom 19. Juni 2014 („Konkursgesetz 2014“) ersetzen und führt mehrere wesentliche Änderungen ein, die sich auf die Konkursverfahren auswirken können, die auf der Umsetzung des Konkursgesetzes 2014 ab seinem Inkrafttreten bis heute basieren. Die erste Frist für öffentliche Stellungnahmen läuft bis zum 25.
Le 4 février 2025, le dernier projet de loi amendée sur la faillite (« le Projet de loi ») a été publié par la Cour populaire suprême (« CPS ») pour consultation publique. Le Projet de loi est censé remplacer la loi actuelle sur la faillite n°51/2014/QH13 du 19 juin 2024 (« Loi sur la faillite de 2014 ») et introduit plusieurs changements significatifs qui pourraient impacter les procédures de faillite, se basant sur la mise en œuvre de la Loi sur la faillite de 2014 depuis son entrée en vigueur.
On 4 February 2025, the latest Draft of the Amended Law on Bankruptcy (“Draft”) was published by the People’s Supreme Court (“SPC”) for public comments. The Draft is prepared to supersede the current Law on Law on Bankruptcy No. 51/2014/QH13 dated 19 June 2014 (“Bankruptcy Law 2014”) and introduces several significant changes that may impact the bankruptcy procedures based on the implementation of the Bankruptcy Law 2014 from its effective date until now.
To encourage vendors and other creditors to continue doing business with financially distressed entities, the Bankruptcy Code includes various defenses to litigation brought by a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") seeking to avoid pre-bankruptcy payments to such entities. One of these defenses shields from avoidance transfers made to pay debts incurred in the ordinary course of business of the debtor and the transferee.
Mitigating risk of loss associated with a bankruptcy filing should be an element of any commercial transaction, especially if it involves a sale or license of intellectual property rights. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit provides a stark reminder of the consequences of when it is not. In In re Mallinckrodt PLC, 99 F.4th 617 (3d Cir.
Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code's "safe harbor" preventing avoidance in bankruptcy of certain securities, commodity, or forward-contract payments has long been a magnet for controversy. Several noteworthy court rulings have been issued in bankruptcy cases addressing the scope of the provision, including its limitation to transactions involving "financial institutions" as transferors or transferees, its preemption of avoidance litigation that could have been commenced by or on behalf of creditors under applicable non-bankruptcy law, and its application to non-public transactions.
A bedrock principle underlying chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code is that creditors, shareholders, and other stakeholders should be provided with adequate information to make an informed decision to either accept or reject a chapter 11 plan. For this reason, the Bankruptcy Code provides that any "solicitation" of votes for or against a plan must be preceded or accompanied by stakeholders' receipt of a "disclosure statement" approved by the bankruptcy court explaining the background of the case as well as the key provisions of the chapter 11 plan.