Today’s post covers a recent decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas in the Chiron Equities, LLCcase. In that case, the court ordered a preliminary injunction to stop non-bankruptcy court litigation in a dispute between a majority shareholder, a minority shareholder, and his wife.

The question of what constitutes “equal treatment” is a question as old as law itself. Though a favored topic by the Aristotles and the Rousseaus of the world, the question is not entirely esoteric. The concept plays a central role in the law of bankruptcy – courts occasionally describe the principle of equitable distribution between similarly situated creditors as one of the “pillars” of the Bankruptcy Code.

TGIF, right?! Before kick starting your weekend — here’s what you need to know about the recent decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the chapter 11 cases of SemCrude L.P. and its debtor affiliates.

FACTS

Postpetition interest is a thorny area of bankruptcy law.  The myriad rules, coupled with the inconsistent way in which they are often applied, provide fodder for litigation and opportunity for confusion.  

As energy prices continue in their trough and volatile markets fuel speculation of credit deterioration, more and more investors, companies, and professionals find themselves scouring documents to find room for a capital structure adjustment (or, alternatively, for potential threats to their credit support).  A recent decision by the District Court for the Southern District of New York in the Norske cas

Federal bankruptcy law can benefit debtors and creditors alike. Provisions such as the automatic stay and absolute priority ensure a streamlined proceeding, preserving the debtor’s scarce resources for business rehabilitation and creditor repayment.  The alternative, multiple state court debt enforcement actions, would waste the debtor’s time and money on litigation (as valuable as bankruptcy lawyers may be). 

In the latest installment of our “Breaking the Code” series, we take a look at the rarely-mentioned section 108(c) of the Bankruptcy Code, which governs the effect of certain deadlines relating to nonbankruptcy legal actions:

Finding out you missed an important deadline is the stuff nightmares are made of.  Even more so for attorneys, where letting a court imposed deadline pass without taking the requisite action may substantially hinder the rights of clients.  In 

We hope you are emerging from your sugar coma and ready for some easy to digest morsels of the Weil Bankruptcy Blog.  With this entry, we summarize the blog entries from the second half of October. 

In a Twist, Court Finds That Junior Stakeholders Violated Their Implied Duties Under an Indenture

Congress made clear in its enactment of section 503(b)(3)(D) of the Bankruptcy Code that, to the extent a creditor makes a substantial contribution in a chapter 9 or chapter 11 bankruptcy case, that creditor should be rewarded.  Because the reward — reimbursement of fees and expenses as administrative expenses of the estate —