When a bankruptcy case is dismissed for cause pursuant to section 1112(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, the effect of the dismissal on orders entered during the case is not always clear. A recent District of Delaware decision,
In resolving a motion for leave to file an amended complaint to add new claims, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in Hosking v.
We have previously discussed default-rate interest and late fees in connection with a secured creditor’s claim. Can a secured creditor choose to waive one in favor of the other if both are not available? And when is a secured creditor entitled to default-rate interest in the first place
It has been a few years since we at the Blog have discussed the Barton doctrine, the common law bankruptcy rule requiring a party to seek leave from the appointing court before suing a court-appointed receiver (see here and
Overview
With data privacy issues constantly in the news, what do businesses need to know about handling personal information when they’re considering bankruptcy, especially if some personal information – like customer records – may be a valuable asset?
A recent ruling from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York sent shock waves through the legal and financial community, with some shouting that this “could be a gamestopper for the private equity business.”1 Although the ruling in In re Nine West LBO Securities Litigation2 breaks new ground and arguably narrows the protections available to directors under the normally-broad business judgment rule, there are clear lessons others can take from this saga to prevent a similar fate.
In a highly anticipated decision issued last Thursday (on December 19, 2019), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held in In re Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC that a bankruptcy court may constitutionally confirm a chapter 11 plan of reorganization that contains nonconsensual third-party releases. The court considered whether, pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011), Article III of the United States Constitution prohibits a bankruptcy court from granting such releases.
Fifth Circuit Holds that Disallowance of Claim Pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code Does Not Render Such Claim Impaired and Casts Doubt on Creditors’ Ability to Recover Make-Whole Amounts or Post-Petition Interest at the Default Contract Rate
Executive Summary
Weil Summer Associate David Rybak contributed to this post