Restructurings are all about alternatives. It is one thing for a creditor to hold an instrument that entitles it to payment of $X on Y date. But if the debtor does not have the cash to satisfy the obligation when due, some type of restructuring must occur.
When you start planning to leave your firm for greener pastures, lots of ethics issues can crop up (bad pun). One of the most acute issues is if you get an offer to join a firm that is on the opposite side of a matter you are already handling. That was the situation in a recent bankruptcy case, In re US Bentonite, Inc., and it led the court to order the firm representing a Chapter 11 debtor-in-possession to disgorge several months’ worth of fees.
In Del. Trust Co. v. Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. LLC (In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.), 527 B.R. 178 (Bankr. D. Del. 2015), the bankruptcy court ruled that, even though a chapter 11 debtor repaid certain bonds prior to maturity, a "make-whole" premium was not payable under the plain terms of the bond indenture because automatic acceleration of the debt triggered by the debtor's chapter 11 filing was not a "voluntary" repayment.
The first step to defending a debtor's objection to proof of claim is knowing one was filed. Debtors are required to provide notice to creditors. The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure contain numerous rules governing notice, each describing the form, content and time periods for establishing their adequacy. Deviating from these rules could result in the relief requested being denied, despite an otherwise justifiable claim. Conversely, a creditor's untimely recognition and response to a debtor's properly noticed objection may result in harsh consequences, wh
Prior to September 1, 2015, procedures in consumer chapter 13 bankruptcy cases varied greatly across the divisions of the Middle District of Florida, creating vastly different workflows for creditors and attorneys with cases pending in multiple divisions across the District. (The Middle District of Florida comprises four divisions, including Orlando, Tampa, Jacksonville and Fort Myers.) As part of the U.S.
Individuals filing for bankruptcy pursuant to Chapter 7 of Title 11 of the United States Code (the "Bankruptcy Code") generally do so to have their debts discharged and receive the proverbial "fresh start."2 The same, however, is not true for corporations.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware recently denied the debtors’ attempt to assume a software license agreement while simultaneously rejecting related agreements with the same vendor. In Huron Consulting Svcs., LLC v. Physiotherapy Holdings, Inc. (In re Physiotherapy Holdings, Inc.), Chief Judge Leonard P.
In a bankruptcy case, the bankruptcy estate (through the Debtor or Trustee) is permitted to employ counsel and other professionals (e.g.
Courts almost always treat fraud claims as per se (automatic) violations of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1. Does that mean that fraudulent transfers of assets, likewise, automatically support recovery under section 75-1.1?
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an important preference decision on August 10, 2015.
What You Need to Know
Payments to creditors arising from a recent, single business transaction can be protected by the ordinary course of business defense.
C.W. Mining Company Case
The debtor C.W. Mining Company was failing. In an attempt to survive, it decided to try something new, specifically to increase coal production by converting its mining operations from continuous mining to a long wall system.