The Weil Bankruptcy Blog frequently writes on issues revolving around equitable mootness (See Equitable Mootness on Life Support: The Third Circuit Further Pares Back the Abstention Doctrine in One2One Communications,

Does the bankruptcy filing of a limited liability company without the approval of its “Special Member,” the secured lender serving as “blocking director,” render that filing infirm as unauthorized and subject to dismissal?  Not necessarily, held the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois in a 

Practitioners that exclusively represent clients in large scale restructurings and chapter 11 reorganizations may be used to the debtor remaining in place with senior management continuing to oversee the day to day operations of the company and overseeing the debtor’s reorganization case.  It may seem strange then to such practitioners that, unlike in chapter 11 cases, the debtor in a chapter 7 case often has only a limited role in its own bankruptcy case after the initial debtor interview and the section 341 meeting of creditors.  In a chapter 7 case, a trustee is appointed and i

Now that we’ve recovered from the balmy holidays, survived a record snowstorm in New York, eaten way too many snacks at Super Bowl parties, wished everyone a Happy Year of the Monkey, enjoyed two long weekends, and debated the effects of the passing of Justice Scalia, it’s time to settle back down to business and take the rest of this short week to catch up on what you may have missed in the Weil Bankruptcy Blog so far this year. 

Bankruptcy Code Preempts McCarran-Ferguson Act in Dispute Over Courts’ Jurisdiction

In a chapter 15 decision, In re Daebo International Shipping Co., Judge Michael E.

“Desperate times call for desperate measures” is often a rallying cry to justify harsh actions taken during times of panic and uncertainty which, in retrospect, are regrettable.  To protect against such adverse consequences in bankruptcy, there are and should be safeguards in place to prevent creditors from imposing unreasonable restrictions on a debtor at the immediate onset of an involuntary case.  In 

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 

“Who by water and who by fire, who by sword and who by beast, who by famine and who by thirst, who by [bankruptcy courts deciding matters that are outside their constitutional authority]”
– Rosh Hashanah liturgy, as modified

Here, at the Bankruptcy Blog, we are committed to keeping you up to speed on the current state of bankruptcy law. Today’s post provides readers with an update to a decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, which considered whether the debtors were required to assume a bundle of related agreements as one executory contract, or whether the debtors could assume only those agreements that contained provisions most favorable to their ongoing operations.