Recently, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held that a carve-out provision in a DIP financing order did not act as an absolute limit on the fees and expenses payable to the professionals retained by an unsecured creditors’ committee (the “Committee”). Rather, in In re Molycorp, Inc., 562 B.R. 67 (Bankr. D. Del.

The Slovak personal insolvency regime will change on March 1, 2017. The new system is aimed at opening personal insolvency to a wider debtor audience, while keeping it simple and cost effective. Today, only those individuals with assets over EUR 1,659.70 could seek a declaration of bankruptcy. Otherwise, the proceedings would be stopped and the doors to a “fresh start” would be closed for “poor” debtors (also called No Income No Asset debtors (NINAs)).

What does it mean to “cure” a default in the context of a plan of reorganization? This question arises by virtue of section 1123(a)(5)(G) of the Bankruptcy Code, which requires that a plan provide adequate means for the plan’s implementation, including the “curing or waiving of any default.” On November 4, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals defined what it means to “cure” by holding that a debtor can only cure a contractual default under a plan of reorganization by complying with contractual post-default interest rate provisions.

The topic of net neutrality has continued to be at the forefront of public discourse over recent years. This is the result of the FCC’s repeated attempts to impose regulations designed to protect consumers while at the same time telecom companies seek to control their product and the services they provide without what they contend is burdensome regulation. This summer, in U.S. Telecommunication Association v. FCC, the D.C.

Significant changes have taken effect and are expected to continue within the education sector, the result of which may lead to an increase in restructuring activity and additional pressure on funding streams.

Last week this author delved into what has become known as the “Texas Two-Step,” the arguments for and against its permissibility and the broader implications for the bankruptcy system.

In our earlier blog, we considered the application to strike out the challenge against the Caffè Nero company voluntary arrangement (“CVA”) (Nero Holdings Ltd v Young) and the rejection of Caffè Nero’s strike-out action by the Court.

The recent case of Manolete Partners Plc v Hayward and Barrett Holdings Ltd [2021] EWHC 1481 (Ch) impacts both insolvency practitioners and assignees of insolvency claims, potentially making such claims more expensive to bring and a procedural burden by requiring (depending on the nature of the pleaded claims) two sets of proceedings, even though the claims arise from the same facts.

The Australian government has taken swift action to enact new legislation that significantly changes the insolvency laws relevant to all business as a result of the ongoing developments related to COVID

In 2020, bankruptcy court doors continued to be shut to cannabis companies. Perhaps most troubling is the continued bar for companies that are only tangentially involved in the state-legalized cannabis industry. Although outlier cases exist, and even though courts have hinted that bankruptcy may be appropriate for some cannabis-related individuals and companies in some situations, there is a consensus now that bankruptcy is generally not available to individuals and companies engaged, directly or indirectly, in the cannabis industry.