One of the effects of commercial globalization is that the bankruptcy filing of a debtor with transnational business relationships will sometimes result in a clash between the substantive bankruptcy laws of different countries. A frequent question is whether the bankruptcy laws of a foreign country should be brought to bear upon creditors located in the United States, even where foreign bankruptcy law is at odds with the laws of the United States.
On Tuesday, December 2, 2013, Judge Steven Rhodes of the Eastern District of Michigan ruled that the City of Detroit, which filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court on July 18, 2013, met the specific legal criteria required to receive protection from its creditors and thus could formally enter bankruptcy. The district court further determined that the city’s obligation to pay pensions in full was not "untouchable" while working and negotiating with creditors in restructuring its debt.
Would you know what to do if you learned that one of your franchisees had filed for bankruptcy? Perhaps more importantly, would you know what not to do? While each circumstance and franchise agreement is different, there is a general framework for dealing with a franchisee in bankruptcy. Here we’ll introduce some of the issues you are likely to encounter throughout the bankruptcy process.
The Automatic Stay
On December 5, 2013, Judge Steven Rhodes of the US Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan held that the city of Detroit had satisfied the five expressly delineated eligibility requirements for filing under Chapter 9 of the US Bankruptcy Code1 and so could proceed with its bankruptcy case.
The Michigan judge overseeing Detroit’s historic bankruptcy case found today that parties seeking to appeal his order finding the city eligible for bankruptcy protection may proceed directly to the Sixth Circuit.
A recent Third Circuit reversal paves the way for Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) lawsuits based on minor procedural mishaps in bankruptcy court. This contradicts the law in the Second and Ninth Circuits and in many district and bankruptcy courts that previously have found that participation in bankruptcy proceedings is not an attempt to collect a debt and thus not grounds for an FDCPA claim.
My how time flies in protracted bankruptcy litigation. More than four years ago, as I reported back at the time, the Bankruptcy Court in the Chapter 15 cross-border bankruptcy case of Qimonda AG issued its first decision on the application of Section 365(n) in that case. After an initial appeal, a four-day trial on remand, and another appeal, last week the U.S.
In re American Roads LLC, et al., 496 B.R. 727 (S.D.N.Y. 2013
CASE SUMMARY
An ad hoc committee of bondholders who executed an agreement with a monoline insurer securing claims under an insured unitranche containing a “no action” clause, bargained away their right to appear in the debtor’s bankruptcy case and, therefore, lacked standing to object to the debtor’s chapter 11 plan.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Bankruptcy Judge Steven Rhodes ruled from the bench on December 3, 2013 (followed by a written opinion on December 5, 2013) that Detroit is eligible for bankruptcy protection, allowing the city to attempt to restructure $18.5 billion of debt. Thus begins the largest American municipal bankruptcy case. After nine days of trial, the judge ruled that although the city did not negotiate in good faith prior to bankruptcy, it was impossible for the city to do so.