On September 11, 2019, the Delaware district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision to expunge a proof of claim filed by a claims trader in the Woodbridge Group of Companies, LLC bankruptcy case.

In the recent case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA & others [2016] EWHC 1686, the High Court has held for the first time that a dividend can be challenged as a transaction entered into at an undervalue within the meaning of section 423(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “IA”).

The Facts

The facts of the case are long and complex but for present purposes the pertinent facts are as follows.

Arjo Wiggins Appleton Limited (now Windward Prospects Limited) (“AWA”) was a wholly owned subsidiary of Sequana SA (“SSA”).

We’re still a month away from Halloween, but TCPAWorld has just become even scarier.

I have frequently remarked on the unfairness of individual corporate officers being held individually and personally liable for TCPA violations committed by corporate entities. That sometimes means liability well into the millions of dollars in personal exposure for individuals based upon actions taken by companies these individuals helped run. Well imagine, for a moment, if all that exposure were deemed non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. Horrifying right?

A recent decision of the Slovak Courts suggest that if main proceedings have been opened in one member state and the debtor has assets in Slovakia, the insolvency practitioner in the main proceedings must act quickly and sell those assets before secondary proceedings are opened in Slovakia, otherwise he runs the risk of losing the assets to the secondary estate. Legal title to the assets must have passed to the buyer before the secondary proceedings are opened; it is not enough just for contracts to have been exchanged.

We have written before about the virtual dead end faced by marijuana companies who try to seek protection in the bankruptcy courts. Almost uniformly, bankruptcy courts have shut their doors on marijuana companies, including their landlords and suppliers.

Last week, our post “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” discussed a Texas bankruptcy court decision rejecting efforts by debtor Sam Wyly to claim as exempt a number of offshore private annuities.

This installment of the Weil Bankruptcy Blog’s series on the ABI Commission Report is the second of two posts that address the Commission’s recommendations relating to postpetition financing.

“That ain’t right. Baby, that ain’t right at all.”

– Nat King Cole

When a bank holding company files a chapter 11 case, a key factor to the success of the case will be whether the debtor previously made any commitment to a federal depository institution regulatory agency, such as the FDIC, to maintain the capital of the debtor’s bank subsidiary.  This is because section 365(o) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that the debtor is deemed to have assumed such obligations, and any claim for subsequent breach of these obligations is entitled to priority under section 507(a)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code.  The FDIC often demands

Today’s blog article, which looks at the ability of a debtor to assume, assign, or reject oil and gas “leases” under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, is the third in the Weil Bankruptcy Blog series, “Drilling Down,” where we review issues at the intersection of the oil and gas industry and bankruptcy law.