On August 29, 2012, Contec Holdings, Ltd ("Contec") and various related entities filed chapter 11 petitions for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. Simultaneous with filing its bankruptcy petitions, Contec also filed with the Bankruptcy Court a declaration of the company's Chief Restructuring Officer in support of its first day motions (the "Declaration"). Contec was started in 1978 and provides repair services for cable and broadband operators. The company services equipment such as cable set-tops, modems and satellite receivers.
Introduction
Favorable contracts are an important asset for a bankruptcy estate. If a contract is an executory contract (a contract with performance remaining by both parties), the Bankruptcy Code gives a debtor the choice of either assuming and performing under the contract going forward, or rejecting the contract and leaving the resulting rejection damages as a claim against the bankruptcy estate. Similarly, a debtor may choose to perform or not perform under a nonexecutory contract for which it has continuing obligations.
In the first decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court decision, concluding that a defendant’s bankruptcy filing does not prevent the district court from ruling on a contempt motion for violation of a temporary restraining order protecting plaintiff’s trademarks. Dominic’s Restaurant of Dayton, Inc. v. Mantia, Case Nos. 10-3376; -3377 (6th Circuit July 5, 2012) (Batchelder, C.J.; McKeague, J.; Quist, D.J., sitting by designation).
This article is Part Three in a seven-part series on how to structure sales and what to do when your customer fails to pay. You can find previous article in this series here: Structuring Sales to Ensure Payment, Signs of Trouble Before Payment Default. Please subscribe to this blog by entering your email in the box on the left, or check back weekly for additional articles in the series.
Judge Martin Glenn of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently ruled that Borders gift card holders did not qualify as “known creditors.” The Court concluded that the gift card holders were entitled only to publication notice rather than actual notice of the bar date for filing bankruptcy claims in Borders’ chapter 11 case.
Judges Kevin Carey and Mary Walrath of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued opinions in In re Tribune Co.1 and In re JER/Jameson Mezz Borrower II, LLC2, respectively, that shake up the landscape for restructuring real estate investments with multiple layers of debt.
In the case of In re Santa Ysabel Resort and Casino, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California heard arguments on September 4, 2012, as to whether the alleged debtor, a tribal casino, was eligible for bankruptcy protection. The court concluded the casino was not an eligible debtor under the Bankruptcy Code.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently heard arguments in a case that could have substantial implications on the trading of bankruptcy claims. While the court could choose to resolve the case, Longacre Master Fund, Ltd. v.
On August 20th, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed a trial court's ruling finding that judgments against Ponzi scheme "net gainers" were non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. The debtors were early investors in what turned out to be a Ponzi scheme and received more money than they invested. When the Ponzi scheme was uncovered, the state State of Oklahoma sued the debtors for unjust enrichment but not for any securities violations. After the State obtained a judgment on the unjust enrichment claim, the debtors declared bankruptcy.