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
    Third Circuit reaffirms 1999 O’Brien decision regarding application of Bankruptcy Code Section 503(b) to break-up fees of stalking horse bidders
    2010-04-28

    In 1999 the Third Circuit Court of Appeals rendered its decision in Calpine Corp. v. O’Brien Environmental Energy, Inc. (In re O’Brien Environmental Energy, Inc.), 181 F.2d 527, denying Calpine Corporation’s request for the payment of a break-up fee after Calpine lost its effort to acquire the assets of O’Brien Environmental Energy out of bankruptcy.

    Filed under:
    USA, Energy & Natural Resources, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Squire Patton Boggs, Bankruptcy, Debtor, Interest, Marketing, Limited liability company, Due diligence, Non-disclosure agreement, United States bankruptcy court, Third Circuit
    Authors:
    Nicholas J. Brannick
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Squire Patton Boggs
    Calculated risk: entering into a “loss share” agreement with the FDIC
    2010-05-01

    The recent financial collapse has provided a strategic opportunity for healthy financial institutions, and non-traditional investors, to capitalize on the misfortune of failing banks. The FDIC is accelerating this process by revamping its loss share program. This program gives prospective buyers of failing institutions billions of dollars in government guarantees for risking the purchase of a failing bank, inclusive of all “toxic” assets.

    Filed under:
    USA, Banking, Insolvency & Restructuring, Diaz Reus, Share (finance), Debtor, Accounting, Due diligence, Portfolio (finance), Acquiring bank, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (USA)
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Diaz Reus
    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
    Weathering the storm: Delaware bankruptcy court rules bid procedures in Section 363 sale were unfair and unreasonable
    2010-10-19

    On September 30, 2010, in In re American Safety Razor, LLC, et al, Case No 10-12351 (MFW), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware ruled that the debtors’ proposed bid procedures for the sale of the business were unfair and unreasonable. The bid procedures, among other things, provided too much discretion to the debtors in the auction process.

    363 Sales in General

    Filed under:
    USA, Delaware, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Haynes and Boone LLP, Bankruptcy, Debtor, Interest, Limited liability company, Due diligence, Title 11 of the US Code, United States bankruptcy court
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Haynes and Boone LLP
    Real estate law: rethinking receiverships
    2010-12-20

    When defaults spiked for loans underwritten by commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS), many Texas attorneys sought state court-appointed receivers for commercial real estate assets.

    Placing a struggling property in receivership has long been a remedy available for lenders, but Texas' relatively expedited and inexpensive nonjudicial foreclosure process limited the remedy's practical value for traditional lenders.

    Filed under:
    USA, Texas, Insolvency & Restructuring, Real Estate, Securitization & Structured Finance, Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr PC, Debtor, Collateral (finance), Commercial property, Debt, Mortgage loan, Foreclosure, Liability (financial accounting), Due diligence, Underwriting, Default (finance), Commercial mortgage-backed security, Mortgage-backed security, Secured loan
    Authors:
    Steven A. Caufield
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr PC
    District court reverses TOUSA decision
    2011-02-18

    A recent decision from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the "Court") [1] reversed a controversial 2009 decision from the Bankruptcy Court in the litigation styled Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of TOUSA, Inc. v. Citicorp North America, Inc.

    Filed under:
    USA, Florida, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, LeClairRyan, Bond (finance), Bankruptcy, Debtor, Interest, Debt, Legal burden of proof, Due diligence, Bad faith, Default (finance), Subsidiary, Secured loan, United States bankruptcy court
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    LeClairRyan
    In re TOUSA, Inc.: commercial lending and debt trading markets breathe a sigh of relief
    2011-02-17

    A degree of certainty—for the time being—has been restored for participants in the commercial lending and debt trading markets who have been tracking the appeal of a controversial 2009 fraudulent transfer decision in the TOUSA, Inc. bankruptcy case.i On February 11, 2011, Judge Gold of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida quashed (or nullified)ii the bankruptcy court’s decision, which ordered a group of lenders to disgorge $480 million received in connection with loans they extended to a joint venture involving TOUSA, Inc.

    Filed under:
    USA, Banking, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Bankruptcy, Interest, Debt, Due diligence, Bad faith, Subsidiary, Gross negligence, United States bankruptcy court
    Authors:
    Larren M. Nashelsky , Rafael L. Petrone , Geoffrey R. Peck , Chrys A. Carey
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Morrison & Foerster LLP
    Delaware Chancery Court shifts burden of proof in applying entire fairness standard to recapitalization
    2011-04-25

    The Delaware Chancery Court has found the recapitalization of a media production company entirely fair. Faced with the possibility of bankruptcy and unable to service its debt, the company's board of directors (acting through its special committee) approved a revised recapitalization plan proposed by the company's majority stockholder and primary debt holder. The special committee retained independent legal counsel and a financial advisor. The special committee, after engaging in extensive due diligence, determined to negotiate the recapitalization proposal.

    Filed under:
    USA, Delaware, Company & Commercial, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Herrick Feinstein LLP, Bankruptcy, Shareholder, Board of directors, Debt, Legal burden of proof, Due diligence, Delaware Court of Chancery, Delaware Supreme Court
    Authors:
    Irwin Kishner , Daniel A. Etna
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Herrick Feinstein LLP
    Don’t let bankruptcy scare you away from a good opportunity
    2011-05-10

    A recent bankruptcy case in Pennsylvania,In re Shubh Hotels Pittsburgh, LLC, 439 B.R. 637 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2010), held that as long as the “debtor-in-possession” exercises its sound business judgment when making its decision, the “debtor-in-possession” can enter into a new 15-year franchise agreement over the objection of the secured lender.

    Filed under:
    USA, Franchising, Insolvency & Restructuring, Leisure & Tourism, Litigation, Roetzel & Andress, Bankruptcy, Debtor, Limited liability company, Good faith, Due diligence, Franchise agreement, Business judgement rule, United States bankruptcy court
    Authors:
    Michael J. Carey
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Roetzel & Andress
    Transferee liability: the lottery ticket/uranium contract rule
    2015-04-15

    Mano-Y&M Ltd. v. Field (In re Mortgage Store, Inc.), 773 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2014) –

    Filed under:
    USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Troutman Pepper, Debtor, Due diligence
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Troutman Pepper

    Pagination

    • First page « First
    • Previous page ‹‹
    • …
    • Page 44
    • Page 45
    • Page 46
    • Page 47
    • Current page 48
    • Page 49
    • Page 50
    • Page 51
    • Page 52
    • …
    • 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