In a ruling that comes as a blow to organized labor and a boon to employers in bankruptcy, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently broke new appellate ground in holding that Section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code permits debtors to reject the terms and conditions of an expired collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
It is a familiar scenario: a company is on the verge of bankruptcy, bound by the terms of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), and unable to negotiate a new agreement. However, this time, an analysis of this distressed scenario prompted a new question: does it matter if the CBA is already expired, i.e., does the Bankruptcy Code distinguish between a CBA that expires pre-petition versus one that has not lapsed?
It is a familiar scenario: a company is on the verge of bankruptcy, bound by the terms of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), and unable to negotiate a new agreement. However, this time, an analysis of this distressed scenario prompted a new question: does it matter if the CBA is already expired, i.e., does the Bankruptcy Code distinguish between a CBA that expires pre-petition versus one that has not lapsed?
Did Trump win again? Yes, but this time it was not “The Donald” but was instead the casino operator Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc.
In September 2014, amid “deteriorating financial health” and a “desperate” financial situation, Atlantic City, New Jersey’s Trump Taj Mahal filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Around that same time, the Taj Mahal was attempting to bargain with UNITE HERE Local 54 (the “Union”) to renegotiate the parties’ collective bargaining agreement (the “CBA”) prior to its expiration on September 14, 2014. The parties were unable to reach agreement and the CBA expired.
Did Trump win again? Yes, but this time it was not “The Donald” but was instead the casino-operator Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc. (“Trump Entertainment”).
What better time than the holiday season to discuss “gifting” in the context of chapter 11 cases. “Gifting” commonly refers to the situation where a senior creditor pays (or allocates a portion of its collateral for the benefit of) one or more junior claimholders. Gifting is often employed as a tool to resolve the opposition of a junior class of creditors, who are typically out-of-the-money, to the manner in which the bankruptcy case is being administered. For instance, creditors’ committees may seek gifts from senior creditors to guarantee a recovery for general unsecured
A ruling recently handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit may provide significant flexibility to debtors in that circuit who are implementing sales of substantially all of their assets. In In re LCI Holding Company, Inc., 2015 BL 295784 (3d Cir. Sept.
Under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor is permitted to sell substantially all of its assets outside of a plan of reorganization. Over the past two decades, courts have increasingly liberalized the standards under which 363 sales are approved. A recent decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit,