We recently blogged about Weinman v. Walker (In re Adam Aircraft Industries, Inc.), a decision from the U.S.
One of the main benefits of bankruptcy is the ability of a debtor to reject its burdensome contracts. Although a debtor’s right of rejection appears to be relatively straightforward, section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code can raise a number of issues. One such issue is whether the contract is executory. If the contract is not executory, a debtor may not avail itself of section 365’s rejection powers. Usually it is the debtor who argues in favor of the executory nature of a contract; however, this was not the case in
Over the course of almost a decade of litigation as part of an individual debtor’s chapter 7 bankruptcy case, the bankruptcy judge, in In re Tucker, made “half a dozen or so” comments about the debtor’s demeanor, credibility, and litigation strategy, including referring to the debtor as a “crook,” “dirty bird,” and a “skillful manipulator.” The debtor filed a motion for recusal, arguing the judge
Two recent decisions from the District Court for the Southern District of New York have renewed interest in the Trust Indenture Act and the ability of minority bondholders to use it as a shield to protect their rights in an out-of-court nonconsensual restructuring: Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v.
Attorney. Counselor. Advisor. As “the last bastion of the generalist,” the role of the restructuring attorney takes various forms and requires a restructuring attorney to wear many different hats – at times acting both as lawyer and business advisor. This combination of business and law is very often what draws professionals to the practice area in the first place. The line, however, between business and legal advisor is often blurry and imprecise, and a recent
The Executive Summary provided a short version of the facts. The next few paragraphs provide a longer version, or you can skip to the next section.
In a recent decision, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York upheld a bankruptcy court order that enjoined a plaintiff holding an asbestos claim from pursuing a state court products liability claim against the successor to Manville Forest Products Corporate (“MFP”). Notably, the Court reaffirmed that a claim relating to prepetition exposure to asbestos is a prepetition claim, even though the injury may not have manifested itself until after the petition date.
With data privacy issues constantly in the news, what do businesses need to know about handling personal information when they’re considering bankruptcy, especially if some personal information – like customer records – may be a valuable asset?
The United States District Court for the District of Delaware recently affirmed a Delaware bankruptcy court case that held that the mutuality requirement of section 553(a)1The case declined to find mutuality in a triangular setoff between the debtor, a parent entity that owed the debtor money, and that entity’s subsidiary, which was a creditor.2
Introduction
In re Katy Indus., Inc., 590 B.R. 628 (Bankr. D. Del. 2018) presented an interesting question: If a stalking horse bidder’s successful bid to purchase a company in chapter 11 was partially predicated upon a credit bid, and a portion of that credit bid was challenged after the sale closed, what would be the result for the bidder’s overall successful bid if that portion of the credit bid was eliminated?
Background