Last month Bankruptcy Judge Isacoff in the Southern District of Florida held that a foreign representative may bring state law and foreign law avoidance actions notwithstanding section 1521(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Recently, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held that a carve-out provision in a DIP financing order did not act as an absolute limit on the fees and expenses payable to the professionals retained by an unsecured creditors’ committee (the “Committee”). Rather, in In re Molycorp, Inc., 562 B.R. 67 (Bankr. D. Del.

The concept of “equitable mootness” is a doctrine of relatively long-standing in bankruptcy jurisprudence. It has been used by courts to avoid determination of issues raised on appeal that would require the unscrambling of a plan previously confirmed and implemented. However, that doctrine has recently been questioned in a variety of decisions. It appears that the scope of equitable mootness is clearly ebbing. In that context, a recent decision by this Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals provides an opportunity to further examine the doctrine.

“Reasonably equivalent value” – – part of the standard for evaluation of potential constructive fraudulent transfers – – is both subjective and imprecise. The words “equivalent value” require the court to make a subjective judgment whether consideration received in exchange for a transfer is worth the same as the consideration transferred by the debtor. And the considerations exchanged by the two parties are necessarily of differing characters. A transaction may involve the exchange of money for a tangible asset or for services.

The Jevic Holding Corp. bankruptcy case is proving to be precedent setting.  In a prior post, we examined how the court had greatly increased the evidentiary burden on a party seeking to hold one company liable for the debts of another company under a “single employer” theory.  That ruling was seen as a boon for private equity firms who were oftentimes the target of Chapter 11 creditor

Can a nondischargeability suit survive after a claim is deemed “satisfied in full” under a confirmed plan?  The Tenth Circuit recently considered this question in Bank of Commerce & Trust Co. v.

What does Memorial Day weekend mean to you?  Perhaps it means having a nice long weekend with family and friends?  Or spending hours sitting in traffic with all the people who are getting away from it all for the weekend?  Or maybe you are a traditionalist and will spend the weekend getting all of your white clothes out of Manhattan Mini Storage.  Well, for the Weil Bankruptcy Blog, the start of Memorial Day weekend means one thing — the return of Bankruptcy Beach Reading.

“How was I supposed to know that something wasn’t right here … Show me how you want it to be.  Tell me baby ‘cause I need to know now…” – Britney Spears

“An attorney’s reluctance, or that of his assistant, to work after 6:30 p.m. one evening in order to meet a court-imposed filing deadline does not constitute excusable neglect.”

– In re An

The timing of a bankruptcy petition filing is often a carefully calculated decision that a debtor makes to obtain certain protections of the Bankruptcy Code, most notably, the automatic stay, in advance of a looming event. In many cases, a debtor may be close to tripping a covenant, missing a debt payment, or a creditor may be attempting to foreclose on the debtor’s assets. The debtor must be cognizant of the timing of these events as the protections of the Bankruptcy Code only apply after the petition has been filed.