Skip to main content
Enter a keyword
  • Login
  • Home

    Main navigation

    Menu
    • US Law
      • Chapter 15 Cases
    • Regions
      • Africa
      • Asia Pacific
      • Europe
      • North Africa/Middle East
      • North America
      • South America
    • Headlines
    • Education Resources
      • ABI Committee Articles
      • ABI Journal Articles
      • Covid 19
      • Conferences and Webinars
      • Newsletters
      • Publications
    • Events
    • Firm Articles
    • About Us
      • ABI International Board Committee
      • ABI International Member Committee Leadership
    • Join
    From Dodger blue into the red: a case study of the use of bankruptcy to fight for control of a business
    2011-08-03

    While some fans of the Cleveland Indians have long complained about the frugality of owner Paul Dolan, at least Mr. Dolan has never had trouble making payroll. In perhaps the biggest event to occur off the field since Walter O'Malley moved the team from Brooklyn, the Los Angeles Dodgers filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on June 27, 2011.

    Filed under:
    USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Media & Entertainment, Calfee Halter & Griswold LLP, Bankruptcy, Debtor, Unsecured debt, Hedge funds, Divorce, Business judgement rule, United States bankruptcy court
    Authors:
    Jean R. Robertson , James M. Lawniczak , Kevin P. Shannon
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Calfee Halter & Griswold LLP
    Haftung der GmbH-Geschäftsführung für und in der Krise?
    2020-05-06

    Die weltweite Ausbreitung des Coronavirus sorgt für heftige Turbulenzen im Wirtschaftsleben. Gerät eine GmbH in finanzielle Schieflage, steht besonders die Geschäftsführung unter Druck. Sie kämpft um das wirtschaftliche Überleben der Gesellschaft. Gleichzeitig kommen verschiedene Szenarien für die Haftung des Geschäftsführers in Betracht, wenn dieser keine Krisenprävention durchgeführt hat oder in der Krise nicht die erforderliche Sorgfalt anwendet.

    Haftung wegen unzureichender Krisenprävention

    Filed under:
    Germany, Company & Commercial, Insolvency & Restructuring, Hogan Lovells, Business judgement rule, Coronavirus
    Authors:
    Carla Wiedeck , Dr. Judith Solzbach
    Location:
    Germany
    Firm:
    Hogan Lovells
    Insolvency reform: more equity for directors and less equity for shareholders?
    2010-01-25

    Summary

    In an exciting week for insolvency, the Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law has released a package of reforms to Australia’s corporate insolvency laws. This reform package includes:

    Filed under:
    Australia, Insolvency & Restructuring, Norton Rose Fulbright, Shareholder, Unsecured debt, Class action, Debt, Duty of care, Moratorium, Business judgement rule, Corporations Act 2001 (Australia)
    Authors:
    David Goldman , Steven Palmer , Chris Mcleod , Peter Schmidt
    Location:
    Australia
    Firm:
    Norton Rose Fulbright
    Challenging the sale by a liquidator
    2013-08-30

    In the recent decision of Wentworth Metals Group Pty Ltd v Leigh and Owen (as liquidators of Bonython Metals Group Pty Limited); In the matter of Bonython Metals Group Pty Ltd (In liq) [2013] FCA 349, the Federal Court considered the duties owed by a liquidator when selling assets and the circumstances in which a court should interfere with the decisions of a liquidator.

    BACKGROUND

    Filed under:
    Australia, Energy & Natural Resources, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Corrs Chambers Westgarth, Business judgement rule, Liquidator (law)
    Authors:
    David Abernethy , Kirsty Sutherland , Michael Kimmins
    Location:
    Australia
    Firm:
    Corrs Chambers Westgarth
    Law on CCAA asset sales clarified in Nortel proceedings
    2009-08-12

    The highly publicized announcement by Nortel Networks Corporation (together with its subsidiaries and affiliates, “Nortel”) of its intention to sell certain of its businesses has provided an opportunity for the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to settle the state of the law in Ontario (and, hopefully, across Canada) on the sale of all or substantially all of an entity’s assets within a Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) proceedings.

    Filed under:
    Canada, Corporate Finance/M&A, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Telecoms, Norton Rose Fulbright, Bankruptcy, Debtor, Good faith, Stakeholder (corporate), Business judgement rule, Subsidiary, Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act 1933 (Canada), United States bankruptcy court, US District Court for District of Delaware, Ontario Superior Court of Justice
    Authors:
    Evan Cobb
    Location:
    Canada
    Firm:
    Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
    Director liability & financially distressed companies in Turkey: Turkish regime far more stringent than corresponding rules in the US and UK
    2014-02-20

    American and British directors of corporations should be mindful of the different standards of conduct, obligations, and potential personal liability when holding directorships in Turkish companies, particularly if such companies’ financial situation is deteriorating.

    Filed under:
    Turkey, United Kingdom, USA, Company & Commercial, Insolvency & Restructuring, Locke Lord LLP, Bankruptcy, Shareholder, Business judgement rule
    Authors:
    Arzum Gunalcin , John D. Hughes , John O. Faurescu
    Location:
    Turkey, United Kingdom, USA
    Firm:
    Locke Lord LLP
    Revlon and unocal enhanced scrutiny rejected for dissolution plan
    2016-11-05

    In Huff Energy Fund v. Gershen, C.A. No. 11116-VCS, the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a stockholder’s challenge to the board of director’s decision to dissolve the company following an asset sale. The Court ruled that the enhanced scrutiny standards of Revlon and Unocal do not supplant the business judgment rule in the context of a company’s decision to dissolve.

    Filed under:
    USA, Delaware, Company & Commercial, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, K&L Gates LLP, Shareholder, Fiduciary, Board of directors, Business judgement rule, Unocal Corporation, Delaware Court of Chancery
    Authors:
    Kevin P. Stichter , Nathan G. Harrill
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    K&L Gates LLP
    California appellate court’s decision limits a creditor’s ability to bring a breach of fiduciary duty claim against directors of insolvent corporations
    2010-04-02

    On February 3, 2010, the California Supreme Court denied review of a significant decision by the California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, that limits a breach of fiduciary duty action brought by creditors against directors of an insolvent corporation under California law. Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Boyle, et al., 178 Cal. App. 4th 1020 (2009). California has now joined Delaware in holding that directors do not owe creditors a fiduciary duty, even when the corporation is operating in the so-called “zone of insolvency.”

    Filed under:
    USA, California, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP, Conflict of interest, Bankruptcy, Shareholder, Breach of contract, Fiduciary, Board of directors, Good faith, Business judgement rule, California Supreme Court, California courts of appeal
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP
    Breaking up is hard to do: Third Circuit affirms administrative expense standard for approval of break-up fees
    2010-06-15

    Introduction

    Filed under:
    USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP, Debtor, Standard of review, Due diligence, Business judgement rule, Eighth Circuit, Second Circuit, United States bankruptcy court, Third Circuit
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP
    Creditors of insolvent subsidiaries may bring derivative actions against parent company’s officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duties
    2010-12-01

    Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of TOUSA, Inc. v. Technical Olympic, S.A. (In re TOUSA, Inc.), 2010 WL 3835829 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2010)

    CASE SNAPSHOT

    Filed under:
    USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Reed Smith LLP, Bankruptcy, Shareholder, Unsecured debt, Security (finance), Breach of contract, Fiduciary, Board of directors, Debt, Standing (law), Involuntary dismissal, Stakeholder (corporate), Business judgement rule, Subsidiary, Parent company, United States bankruptcy court
    Authors:
    Brian M. Schenker
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Reed Smith LLP

    Pagination

    • Current page 1
    • Page 2
    • Page 3
    • Page 4
    • Page 5
    • Page 6
    • Page 7
    • Page 8
    • Next page ››
    • Last page Last »
    Home

    Quick Links

    • US Law
    • Headlines
    • Firm Articles
    • Board Committee
    • Member Committee
    • Join
    • Contact Us

    Resources

    • ABI Committee Articles
    • ABI Journal Articles
    • Conferences & Webinars
    • Covid-19
    • Newsletters
    • Publications

    Regions

    • Africa
    • Asia Pacific
    • Europe
    • North Africa/Middle East
    • North America
    • South America

    © 2025 Global Insolvency, All Rights Reserved

    Joining the American Bankruptcy Institute as an international member will provide you with the following benefits at a discounted price:

    • Full access to the Global Insolvency website, containing the latest worldwide insolvency news, a variety of useful information on US Bankruptcy law including Chapter 15, thousands of articles from leading experts and conference materials.
    • The resources of the diverse community of United States bankruptcy professionals who share common business and educational goals.
    • A central resource for networking, as well as insolvency research and education (articles, newsletters, publications, ABI Journal articles, and access to recorded conference presentation and webinars).

    Join now or Try us out for 30 days