In bankruptcy, a debtor must relinquish assets to satisfy debts. But there are exceptions to this general rule. Certain assets may be exempted from a debtor’s bankruptcy under federal and state law. Other assets, which are subject to a contractual loan agreement and the security interest of a lender, may be “reaffirmed” by a debtor pursuant to a reaffirmation agreement.
What happens if you are a trademark licensee and your licensor files for bankruptcy protection?
We’ve focused a lot on third-party releases lately, as bankruptcy courts across the country continue to evaluate whether and under what circumstances they are permissible. But, as a recent opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit demonstrates, bankruptcy courts are not the only courts grappling with this issue.[1]
On February 25, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) ruled that the trustee in the Chapter 11 case for Madoff Investment Securities, LLC could use the U.S. Bankruptcy Code to recover payments made between foreign entities. Previously, the Bankruptcy Court for the S.D.N.Y. and the U.S. District Court for the S.D.N.Y ruled that the trustee could NOT sue the foreign entities based on principles of international comity and the presumption against extraterritoriality of U.S. Laws, including the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
Although the Supreme Court identified three guideposts for evaluating whether a punitive award is unconstitutionally excessive 23 years ago in BMW v. Gore and refined those guideposts 16 years ago in State Farm v.
We’ve all heard it said a million times - if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. But does that age-old maxim apply to a bankrupt customer offering to pay you 100% of your unsecured claim through a “prepackaged” bankruptcy or under a critical vendor program? The answer can be complicated.
This article explores what it means to be “unimpaired” and paid in full in prepackaged bankruptcies and under critical vendor programs and outlines some of the potential pitfalls that can be faced by unsecured creditors under these scenarios.
In determining the legal standard for holding a creditor in civil contempt for attempting to collect a debt in violation of a bankruptcy discharge order, the Supreme Court of the United States adopted an “objectively reasonable” standard, and held that a court may hold a creditor in civil contempt if there is “no fair ground of doubt” as to whether the order barred the creditor’s conduct.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, which had applied a subjective standard for civil contempt.
Clients sometimes ask whether filing bankruptcy can protect them from Federal Trade Commission scrutiny. The saga of Joseph Rensin and his company BlueHippo provides an opportunity to review the limited protection bankruptcy provides from the FTC.
Click here to watch the video.
Webinar
Join Energy and Bankruptcy Law professionals from Thompson Coburn LLP for a one-hour webinar as they address recent developments in the Chapter 11 bankruptcies of PG&E, First Energy and other related cases highlighting the emerging clash between federal energy law and federal bankruptcy law.
In Longoria v. Somers and LC Therapeutics, Inc., C.A. No. 2018-0190-JTL (Del. Ch. May 28, 2019), the Delaware Court of Chancery examined its authority to tax the costs of receivership against the stockholder of an insolvent corporation. The Court’s decision highlights an exception to the general principle that stockholders of a properly maintained corporation are not responsible for costs incurred by the corporation and illustrates a scenario where stockholders may be held liable for a corporation’s obligations.