With the August 4, 2010 auction of the division leading Texas Rangers looming and the memory of last year's bankruptcy sale of the Phoenix Coyotes fresh in our minds, there has been a lot of discussion among bankruptcy professionals about the unique issues that arise when a sports club files for bankruptcy. Generally, sports clubs file bankruptcy for the same reasons as other businesses — as a last resort to save going concern value and/or to avail themselves of some strategic advantage under the Bankruptcy Code.

Last week, the Federal Trade Commission announcedamendments to the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) relating to the telemarketing of debt relief services, including new restrictions on advance fees charged by debt relief companies.

Today the Federal Trade Commission announced a new rule directed specifically at regulating the debt relief industry. Initially proposed eleven months ago, the new rule implements a vast set of requirements and prohibitions, including an absolute ban on charging any fees to consumers before settlements are reached with creditors.

IN RE: MEYERS (August 2, 2010)

"Safe harbors" in the Bankruptcy Code designed to insulate nondebtor parties to financial contracts from the consequences that normally ensue when a counterparty files for bankruptcy have been the focus of a considerable amount of scrutiny as part of evolving developments in the Great Recession. One of the most recent developments concerning this issue in the courts was the subject of a ruling handed down by the New York bankruptcy court presiding over the Lehman Brothers chapter 11 cases. In In re Lehman Bros. Holdings, Inc., Judge James M.

Preservation of favorable tax attributes, such as net operating losses that might otherwise be forfeited under applicable nonbankruptcy law, is an important component of a business debtor's chapter 11 strategy. However, if the principal purpose of a chapter 11 plan is to avoid paying taxes, rather than to effect a reorganization or the orderly liquidation of the debtor, the Bankruptcy Code contains a number of tools that can be wielded to thwart confirmation of the plan.

As attention shifts from the global financial crisis of 2008–2009 to the global sovereign crisis that currently is affecting much of Europe, lawmakers are scrambling to create new laws and regulations designed to stave off the next financial crisis.[1] Meanwhile, a different threat quietly has been growing in America's states, cities, towns, municipalities, and other political subdivisions.

Two decades ago, the Supreme Court tackled the issue of whether a third party had submitted itself to jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. In Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg,1 the Supreme Court ruled that a party who has not filed a claim against a bankrupt's estate is not subject to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy courts. A year later, in Langenkamp v.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently denied the appointment of an examiner in U.S. Bank National Association v. Wilmington Trust Co. (In re Spansion, Inc.),1 despite the requirement in section 1104(c) of the Bankruptcy Code that the Court "shall" appoint an examiner in certain circumstances. In making this decision, Chief Bankruptcy Judge Kevin J.

In a recent decision in the chapter 11 case of WestPoint Stevens, Inc.,1 the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit interpreted section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code to render an appeal of sale under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code statutorily moot. The Second Circuit held that because the Bankruptcy Court had not stayed the order authorizing the sale, a stay of only one aspect of the sale rendered moot of the sale in its entirety.