As if the various statements, schedules, and reports that debtors are compelled to file with a bankruptcy court containing information about the debtor’s assets and liabilities aren’t enough of a reminder that disclosure and transparency are of utmost importance to the bankruptcy process, a recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reinforces this notion.  In 

Here, at the Bankruptcy Blog, we are committed to keeping you up to speed on the current state of bankruptcy law. Today’s post provides readers with an update to a decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, which considered whether the debtors were required to assume a bundle of related agreements as one executory contract, or whether the debtors could assume only those agreements that contained provisions most favorable to their ongoing operations.

While the majority of the cases covered by the Weil Bankruptcy Blog address issues arising in corporate restructurings, cases concerning individual debtors often offer interesting insights into the history and meaning of various provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.

Court Looks to the Knowledge of the Transferees in Madoff

The recent decision from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, ECP Commercial II LLC v. Town Center Flats, LLC (In re Town Center Flats, LLC), gives us at the Weil Bankruptcy Blog a reason to revisit the issue of “absolute” assignments of rent.

Typically, when an individual debtor files for bankruptcy, all of his or her belongings become part of the big “property of the estate” pot that the court ladles up pro rata among hungry creditors.  But debtors need to eat too.  Exemption law allows individual debtors and their families to keep some basic property, such as the clothes on their backs and roofs over their heads.

We have previously discussed default-rate interest and late fees in connection with a secured creditor’s claim.  Can a secured creditor choose to waive one in favor of the other if both are not available?  And when is a secured creditor entitled to default-rate interest in the first place

In a recent decision, In re Philadelphia Entertainment and Development Partners, L.P., No. 14-000255-mdc (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Dec. 31, 2019), the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that state sovereign immunity does not prevent bankruptcy courts from hearing fraudulent transfer claims against states.

Today’s post covers a recent decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas in the Chiron Equities, LLCcase. In that case, the court ordered a preliminary injunction to stop non-bankruptcy court litigation in a dispute between a majority shareholder, a minority shareholder, and his wife.

When Can a Subsidiary Be Liable for the Actions of Its Owners?