You can "wind up" a partnership without having to liquidate all of its assets and terminating its existence. So ruled Judge McGuire last week in Hardin v. Lewis, 2016 NCBC 55. But that may not be true for all partnerships. This case involved a law firm partnership which was continuing to operate its practice after one of its partners left to start her own law firm.

Under Section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor or trustee can sell estate assets “free and clear of any interest” in such assets. This short, simple string of six words represents one of the most powerful tools in the bankruptcy professional’s arsenal.

The scope of the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor for certain financial contracts has been tested again, this time in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Louisiana. The question this time was whether an ipso facto provision continues to be safe harbored if enforcement of that provision is conditioned on other factors – in this case, the debtor’s failure to perform under the contract.

Imagine a creditor filing a claim in a chapter 13 bankruptcy case where neither the debtor nor the bankruptcy trustee objects to the claim. Imagine the chapter 13 plan is confirmed, including the claimed debt, though the creditor receives little to nothing in return for its claim. Can the debtor later bring a separate action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act or does res judicata bar the FDCPA claim?

The bankruptcy courts have a long history of being willing to use their judicial power under the Bankruptcy Code to prevent perceived efforts by debtors to inappropriately shield their assets from creditors. This is true even when the debtors employ structures and devices that are complex and crafted in seeming compliance with applicable law.

Individual debtors with old tax debts relating to late-filed tax returns may be surprised to find that those tax debts may not be dischargeable under section 523(a) of the Bankruptcy Code due to the lateness of the tax filing. There is a current Circuit split regarding whether a late tax filing constitutes a “return” at all, which is critical to the dischargeability inquiry. The Ninth Circuit weighed in last week in In re Smith, 2016 WL 3749156 (9th Cir. July 13, 2016), further cementing the split.

A bankruptcy court’s asset sale order limiting specific pre-bankruptcy product liability claims required prior “actual or direct mail notice” to claimants when the debtor “knew or reasonably should have known about the claims,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on July 13, 2016. In re Motors Liquidation Co., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12848, *46-47 (2d Cir. July 13, 2016).

You might wonder whether lenders can enforce a guaranty of a loan from an individual or entity that has no formal connection with the borrower, i.e. someone who is not an owner or affiliated company. Generally, the answer is yes with some qualifications for potentially insolvent guarantors discussed below. However, lenders are well-advised to take the steps outlined at the end of this post to minimize the risk of a subsequent challenge by the guarantor.

Pursuant to a provision of the Bankruptcy Code familiar to readers of Weil’s Bankruptcy Blog (see our prior post, To Assume or Not to Assume, that Is the Question: What Act Constitutes “Assumption” Under Section 365(d)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code?), the United States District Court for the District of Delaware recently affirmed a bankruptcy c

In 2009, General Motors (“Old GM”) commenced a chapter 11 case and sold the bulk of its business and assets to a new entity (“New GM”) “free and clear” of liabilities against New GM. Notwithstanding the “free and clear” language of the 2009 sale order (the “Sale Order”), a Second Circuit panel recently held that plaintiffs could assert claims against New GM over faulty ignition switches in cars manufactured by Old GM and recalled in early 2014.