It is not unusual for a creditor of a debtor to cry foul that a non-debtor affiliate has substantial assets, but has not joined the bankruptcy. In some cases, the creditor may assert that even though its claim, on its face, is solely against the debtor, the debtor and the non-debtor conducted business as a single unit, or that the debtor indicated that the assets of the non-debtor were available to satisfy claims. In these circumstances, the creditor would like nothing more than to drag that asset-rich non-debtor into the bankruptcy to satisfy its claims. Is that possible?

There are numerous reasons why a company might use more than one entity for its operations or organization: to silo liabilities, for tax advantages, to accommodate a lender, or for general organizational purposes. Simply forming a separate entity, however, is not enough. Corporate formalities must be followed or a court could effectively collapse the separate entities into one. A recent opinion by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts, Lassman v.

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?

Last Tuesday, Puerto Rico sold its much-ballyhooed $3.5 billion in non-investment grade general obligation bonds. Two days later, two legislators in Puerto Rico’s Senate filed a bill which, if enacted, would permit insolvency filings by Puerto Rico’s public corporations in Puerto Rico’s territorial trial court. The juxtaposition of the two events has some bond investors crying foul.

With an increasing number of businesses operating without regard to borders in today’s global economy, the importance of understanding Chapter 15 — the Bankruptcy Code provisions instructing the cooperation between the United States and courts of foreign lands involved in cross-border insolvency cases — has never been greater. This advisory will touch on the scope of Chapter 15 and its attempt to balance comity and domestic legal policy, as highlighted in the recent Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, Ad Hoc Group of Vitro Noteholders v. Vitro SAB de CV, No.

In general, a company has two bankruptcy alternatives: liquidation under Chapter 7 and reorganization under Chapter 11.

Under Chapter 7, upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition, a trustee is appointed to gather and sell all of the debtor’s assets as quickly as possible. Once the trustee liquidates all of the assets, it must pay creditors in accordance with the priority scheme mandated by the Bankruptcy Code:

Finds Bankruptcy Court to be Proper Forum for Claim Objection Despite Forum Selection Clauses in Investor Agreements

The Southern District of New York recently reiterated the critical difference between creditor claims and equity interests in the bankruptcy context.  In a recent opinion arising out of the Arcapita Bank bankruptcy case, the Court was faced with an objection to a proof of claim filed by an investor, Captain Hani Alsohaibi, who characterized his right to recovery against the debtors as being based on a “corporate investment.”

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania has held that an E&O policy issued to a now-bankrupt credit counseling company did not cover claims arising under unfair trade practices statutes, but did cover claims arising under fair debt collection statutes. Hrobuchak v. Fed. Ins. Co., 2013 WL 2291875 (M.D. Pa. May 24, 2013). The court also held that carve-outs from the policy’s definition of loss did not preclude coverage for statutory damages or damages representing the return of fees paid to the insured.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, applying federal law, has held that a Liquidation Trustee and a Litigation Trustee (the Trustees) did not have standing to object to the disbursal of policy proceeds in an insurer’s interpleader action because they had no existing claims or realistic potential claims for coverage under the policy. Federal Insurance Co. v. DBSI, Inc., 2012 WL 2501090 (Bankr. D. Del. June 27, 2012).

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, applying Ohio law, has held that a dishonesty exclusion barred coverage under primary and excess directors and officers (D&O) policies for the Wrongful Acts of the principals of a bankrupt company, all of whom were criminally convicted of securities fraud and related crimes.  The Unencumbered Assets Trust v. Great American Insurance Co., et. al., 2011 WL 4348128 (S.D. Ohio Sept.