“Will you, won’t you, will you, won’t you, won’t you join the dance?” – The Mock Turtle’s Song, Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland

Vinny Gambini: Are you suuuuure? Mona Lisa Vito: I’m positive. – My Cousin Vinny

In the well-known children’s story book written by P.D. Eastman and edited by beloved Dr. Seuss, a baby bird embarks on a quest to find his mother, asking a hen, a dog, and a kitten, among others, the famous question, “Are you my mother?”   If Dr. Seuss had penned the recently-decided case of Thielman v. MF Global Holdings, Ltd.

Do Your Duty As You See It: Recent Decisions on Board Duties and Corporate Governance

Proofs of claim filed against a debtor can be as varied as the claimants themselves. Everything from hand-written notes to hundreds of pages of sophisticated corporate documents has been submitted in support of claims. Matters become even more complicated when the claimant is a foreigner relying on foreign law and foreign language documents. In 

Canons of statutory construction are used frequently to resolve ambiguities in the Bankruptcy Code. In 

The equitable theory of veil piercing, intended to serve as a rectifying mechanism against certain fraud, dishonesty or wrongdoing, is of particular import in the bankruptcy context given that it is an attractive remedy for a creditor of an insolvent company hoping to obtain a greater recovery on its claim. State law governs veil piercing claims and sets forth the hurdles a party must overcome in order to persuade the bankruptcy court that the debtor’s corporate formalities should be ignored.

Purchasers beware: sometimes less is not more. As the successful bidder in 

Breach or termination?  In most cases involving the rejection of an unexpired lease where the debtor is the lessee, whether a rejection constitutes merely a “breach,” as stated in section 365(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, or a “termination” is largely academic – the debtor vacates the premises, and the lessor files a prepetition claim for rejection damages. The debtor and its landlord may argue about the

Today, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Bank of America, N.A. v.

Jetivia S.A. and another v Bilta (UK) Limited (in liquidation) and others [2015] UKSC 23

Insolvency practitioners and creditors alike will welcome the decision handed down by the Supreme Court on 22 April 2015. It reduces the wiggle room given to delinquent directors of insolvent companies when claims are brought against them, and confirms the extra-territorial effect of claims against third parties under the fraudulent trading provisions in section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”).

Background & Facts