In this installment of “To Cap or Not to Cap,” which was previously featured on Weil’s Bankruptcy Blog in May of 2015 (see here), we reviewed a recent decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In Kupfer v.

The Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme provides that the shareholders generally cannot receive anything on account of their investment until all secured, priority and unsecured creditors are paid in full.

Who doesn’t love a good catch-all provision? In a world of infinite possibilities, attorneys often find themselves drafting language designed to encompass a plethora of contingencies. Are such efforts sometimes overkill? Perhaps. Nevertheless, given our imperfect ability to predict the future, such provisions are often necessary and appropriate.

When Can a Subsidiary Be Liable for the Actions of Its Owners?

The latest in a line of fraudulent transfer decisions in the Madoff case has added to the case-law regarding what level of knowledge is needed to plead actual fraud in securities Ponzi scheme cases.

As we previously reported here at the Weil Bankruptcy Blog, in Burberry Limited and Burberry USA v.

Unsecured Creditors and Postpetition Interest – the EFH Court’s Analysis

Generally when parties to a dispute work out a settlement they can breathe a sigh of relief and put their differences behind them.  OK – it’s a little more complicated than that when one of the parties is a chapter 11 debtor that must seek relief from the bankruptcy court to approve the settlement.  But what if a party objects?  Things get a bit more complicated.  And what if the objecting party has no apparent pecuniary interest at stake?  In that scenario, the settling parties can rest a little easier as the bankruptcy court in 

In yesterday’s edition of the Weil Bankruptcy Blog, we introduced 

In a recent decision, Quadrant Structured Products v.