“Life is not about perfect information. Life is about choices, which is why you have elections.”

Regardless of whether a creditor has a claim identified in a debtor’s schedules of assets and liabilities, generally speaking, most attorneys representing creditors in the context of a chapter 11 case will advise their clients to file a formal proof of claim with the bankruptcy court.  Often this is just “belts and suspenders” and a matter of good practice but, if nothing else, a formal proof of claim will serve to protect a creditor’s rights and interests vis à vis the estate.

On August 26, 2014, Judge Drain concluded the confirmation hearing in Momentive Performance Materials and issued several bench rulings on cramdown interest rates, the availability of a make-whole premium, third party releases, and the extent of the subordination of senior subordinated noteholders.

As this Blog has discussed in a number of recent posts, free and clear sales under section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code often lead to disputes over whether section 363(f) can strip assets of particular types of claims and interests. Although section 363(f) plays an important role in maximizing the value of a debtor’s assets in a section 363 sale, adversely affected parties may object to those assets being sold free and clear of their claims.

This is the third post in our Bitcoin Bankruptcy series on the Weil Bankruptcy Blog.  In the spring of this year, the shutdown of Japanese bitcoin exchange Mt. Gox made us think about what might have happened if Mt.

Readers may recall that, according to at least one bankruptcy court, chapter 9 debtors are not required to obtain bankruptcy court approval of compromises and settlements.

A foreign (non-U.S.) company can be dragged unwillingly into a U.S. bankruptcy case if the bankruptcy court has “personal jurisdiction” over the company.

In a decision that has already prompted much discussion and debate amongst the bankruptcy bar, the Supreme Court held in Baker Botts LLP v.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the much-anticipated Wellness International Network, Ltd. v.

It’s nothing new in 2015 to say that social media has become a valuable part of any company’s marketing and public relations strategy.  Companies now rely on sites like Facebook and Twitter to communicate with customers, advertise products, build brands, and shape public opinion.   Despite the obvious value such accounts provide, however, it is not always clear what rights, if any, a company may have in a social media accounts associated with its businesses or brands.