Overview
In Asarco, LLC v. Noranda Mining, Inc., the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that representations made to the bankruptcy court that the Debtor’s settlement of environmental claims reflected only the Debtor’s share of the cleanup costs did not judicially estop the Debtor from brining a contribution claim against another potentially responsible party for those same costs.
Pursuant to a provision of the Bankruptcy Code familiar to readers of Weil’s Bankruptcy Blog (see our prior post, To Assume or Not to Assume, that Is the Question: What Act Constitutes “Assumption” Under Section 365(d)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code?), the United States District Court for the District of Delaware recently affirmed a bankruptcy c
Claims disputes are “core proceedings” in bankruptcy cases that are subject to the general jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts, subject to exceptions for personal injury tort or wrongful death claims. Under 28 U.S.C.
Perhaps Next Time the Debtor Will Speak Up a Little Sooner
What happens when the counterparties on both sides of a contract are debtors in separate bankruptcy cases and their estates have contrary views about whether to reject or assume a contract?
Depending on the nature of its business, a debtor may encounter issues associated with the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (“PACA”), a statue designed to protect sellers of perishable produce. Recently, in Kingdom Fresh Produce, Inc. v.
Forgot to Get a Court Order Approving a Postpetition Loan? It May Not Matter