For those who may be considering an investment in life settlements (see my previous blog for background), recent bankruptcy filings of life settlement entities have raised a concern not often considered when determining whether or not to invest: what would happen if the entity that owns or manages the underlying insurance policy(s) ends up in bankruptcy. Life settlement companies typically include provisions in their purchase agreements that downplay the potential ramifications of a bankruptcy filing.

Estate professionals are under continued scrutiny. Unlike other professionals, getting paid is not simply a matter of sending a bill. The bankruptcy court, appropriately so, closely oversees the amount and timing of payment of estate professional fees. And proper disclosure under the Bankruptcy Code and the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”) is critical for all estate professionals.

Virtually all public indentures contain provisions allowing the issuer to cure ambiguities and make other technical changes to the debt documentation without debtholder consent. When the purported ambiguities have substantive consequences, however, issuers may not be able to get away with an amendment that lacks debtholder approval. InGSO Coastline Credit Partners L.P. v. Global A&T Electronics Ltd. (NY App. Div. 1st Dept. May 3, 2016), a New York lower court bought into a “cure of ambiguity” argument and on that basis granted a motion to dismiss.

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.

Benjamin M. Hron, Esq. ANATOMY OF A TERM SHEET: SERIES A FINANCING A key milestone in the lifecycle of many successful companies (and, admittedly, many unsuccessful companies) is obtaining financing from angel or venture capital investors, but in negotiating with experienced investors entrepreneurs are usually at a distinct disadvantage because they are unfamiliar with standard terms. While we strongly suggest entrepreneurs consult their lawyers rather than negotiate a term sheet mano-amano, we know this often doesn’t happen.

Last week, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a bankruptcy court order barring tort claims for product defects against the purchaser of General Motors’ (“Old GM”) assets.  The purchaser (“New GM”) had purchased Old GM’s assets “free and clear” in Old GM’s 2009 bankruptcy case under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code.  The Second Circuit’s ruling is certainly a victory for the plaintiffs who are seeking damages for personal injuries arising o

Until the recent U. S. Supreme Court’s decision in Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz, __ U.S. __, 136 S.Ct. 1581, 194 L.Ed.2d 655, 84 U.S. L.W. 4270 (2016), there was disagreement in the circuit courts regarding whether a debtor in bankruptcy could be denied a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) where the evidence of wrongdoing proved the debtor committed actual fraud, but there was no evidence that the debtor made a misrepresentation to the creditor seeking to bar the discharge.

A decision from the United States Supreme Court penned by Justice Sonia Sotomayor adopted a broad reading of “actual fraud” in section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, which excepts from discharge debts “obtained by . . .

Recently, a bankruptcy court in the First Circuit, confronted with whether the debtors’ chapter 12 case could be converted to a chapter 11 case – an issue over which there is split in the case law – determined that the Debtors’ chapter 12 case could not be converted to a chapter 11 case.

Relevant Statutes and Statutory Provisions:

In a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the General Motors case, the court held certain claimants were not afforded procedural due process with respect to the § 363 sale of General Motor Corporation’s assets in the bankruptcy case. As a result, the assets were not sold free and clear of these claims, and these claimants may now seek recovery against New GM.