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.

Weil's Appellate & Strategic Counseling group welcomes you to Weil's SCOTUS Term Review. Here, we summarize and analyze the cases from the 2023 Supreme Court Term that are most germane to our clients' businesses.

In Harrington v. Purdue Pharma LP, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize bankruptcy courts to confirm a Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan that discharges creditors’ claims against third parties without the consent of the affected claimants. The decision rejects the bankruptcy plan of Purdue Pharma, which had released members of the Sackler family from liability for their role in the opioid crisis. Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority decision. Justice Kavanaugh dissented, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kagan and Sotomayor.

Today, in Office of the United States Trustee v. John Q Hammons Fall 2006, LLC, the Supreme Court held that debtors who paid fees in bankruptcy cases administered by the U.S. Trustee Program are not entitled to any relief, even though the Court previously ruled that those debtors had been unconstitutionally overcharged. This decision is the culmination of several years of litigation concerning differential fee structures across judicial districts.

This morning, the Supreme Court decided Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., which clarifies that any party with a "direct financial stake in the outcome" of a reorganization has standing as a "party in interest" to object to a Chapter 11 plan. 11 U.S.C. 1109(b). Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Sotomayor held that the debtor's insurer has standing to object even if the plan purports to preserve the insurer's legal rights and thus is said to be "insurance neutral."