In a case of first impression in Texas, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas held that the former majority member of a chapter 11 LLC debtor had to relinquish control of the LLC's Facebook page and Twitter account because they were property of the LLC's bankruptcy estate. In re CTLI, LLC, Case No. 14-33564, 2015 WL 1588085 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. April 3, 2015). CTLI, LLC was a Texas gun store and shooting range doing business as Tactical Firearms.

Asbestos defendants are one step closer to greater transparency regarding the often illusive bankruptcy trust claims and payments. On Wednesday, November 13, 2013, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 982, the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency (FACT) Act by a 221-199 vote. FACT would amend the U.S. Bankruptcy Code to require trusts formed under a bankruptcy reorganization plan and charged with paying claims connected to asbestos exposure to disclose all demands made by claimants and the basis of any payments made to claimants.

Borders has long collected personal information from customers and promised that such information would not be disclosed without consent. In light of that and Borders' current bankruptcy proceedings, the FTC has sent a letter to the consumer privacy ombudsman overseeing the Borders bankruptcy that seeks the protection of customer personal information.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Mexican courts were closed for the past few months and only received urgent cases.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative impact on the Mexican economy. As a result, Mexican courts have seen a rise in insolvency cases, which are not as common in Mexico compared to other jurisdictions, such as the United States. The rise of insolvency cases imposes new challenges to Mexican courts and Mexico’s laws.

Going forward, lenders must take precautionary measures to protect themselves. Anticipating the risk of a U.S. bankruptcy case is a crucial first step.

It is fair to say that not many, if any, banks have internal controls or policies and procedures to identify and mitigate deficiencies in the bankruptcy practices of banks. Indeed, banks typically rely on their Legal Department or external counsel to make sure banks protect their interests when bank customers file bankruptcy. While the Compliance Department and the Risk Management Department track compliance and risks related to numerous laws, rules and regulations, the Bankruptcy Code and its rules are typically not among those laws and rules.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, (“the Court”) held in In re John Joseph Louis Johnson, III, Case No. 14-57104, 2016 WL 1719149, that a creditor violated the automatic stay by seeking to enforce an arbitration award against nondebtor co-defendants. The automatic stay applies not only to stay actions against the debtor personally but also prohibits “any act to … exercise control over property of the [debtor’s bankruptcy] estate.” 11 U.S.C.

Under the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor in possession operates its business “as usual” during the pendency of a case. Likewise, in most cases, prepetition corporate governance practices and procedures should continue post-petition. In fact, as Judge Sontchi recently held in In re SS Body Armor I, Inc., Case No. 10-1125(CSS) (Bankr. D. Del. April 1, 2015), the right of a shareholder to compel a shareholders’ meeting for the purpose of electing a new board of directors continues during bankruptcy.  Absent “clear abuse,” the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C.

In AMR Corporation, et al., Debtors, Case No. 12-3967, 2013 WL 1339123 (S.D.N.Y. April 3, 2013), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York acknowledged that to be granted relief from the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d), a secured creditor has the initial burden to show that there has been a decline—or at least a risk of decline—in the value of its collateral. Only then will the burden shift to the debtor to prove that the value of the collateral is not, in fact, declining.

Two recent opinions from separate federal courts of appeal upheld the dismissal of lawsuits by sophisticated investors that suffered losses in the auction rate securities ("ARS") market against the securities broker-dealers that allegedly fraudulently induced the purchase of the ARS.1