Содержание
Takeaways
Op 6 december 2021 heeft de Rechtbank Overijssel de burgemeester van de gemeente Hardenberg aangesteld tot mede-curator in het faillissement van De Zorgstal. Dit is een interessante ontwikkeling omdat, voor zover de auteurs bekend, een burgemeester niet eerder is aangesteld tot mede-curator in een zorgfaillissement.
A recent order from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (the “Court”) allowed a debtor to reopen a completed auction based on a significantly more attractive, but untimely, bid. The late bid was approximately three times the cash consideration of the previously declared winning bid, and also provided for the additional containment of potential environmental risks. The decision is being appealed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (the “District Court”).
For a company with robust data protection and recovery practices, a ransomware attack may cause a few extra headaches, but it won’t wipe the company out. Companies without those protections in place, however, risk allowing ransomware to bankrupt their entire enterprise.
“Engaged in” eligibility for Chapter 12 (farming operations) and Subchapter V (commercial or business activities) are similar-but-separate things.
An opinion by the Kansas Bankruptcy Court shows the difficulty in addressing the “engaged in” eligibility standards in Chapter 12—even when Subchapter V opinions are consulted as analogous.
Takeaways
Appeals from bankruptcy court orders continue to play a key role in bankruptcy practice. The relevant sections of the Judicial Code and the Federal Bankruptcy Rules arguably cover all the relevant issues in a straightforward manner. Recent cases, however, show that neither Congress nor the Rules Committees could ever address the myriad issues raised by imaginative lawyers. The appellate courts continue to wrestle with standing, jurisdiction, mootness, excusable neglect, and finality, among other things.
Highlights
On Jan. 10, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear three cases, which present the following three questions:
Does a motion for relief from a final judgment that is premised on a legal error fall under Rule 60(b)(1) or 60(b)(6)?
Does the Constitution's provision for “uniform” bankruptcy laws permit Congress to implement Chapter 11 fee increases in different ways in different regions of the country?