We at The Bankruptcy Cave applaud the recent ruling by Judge Whipple of the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio, seeking to make the post-confirmation parties, processes, and procedures far more transparent. In In re Affordable Med Scrubs, LLC,[1] Judge Whipple declined to approve a disclosure statement for a debtor’s liquidating plan.

Overview

We’ve all seen it. The business opportunity looks enticing but is laced with risk about a potential bankruptcy filing down the road. As bankruptcy lawyers we are often asked how deals can be structured to prevent a potential bankruptcy filing.

Last December, we updated you that the Supreme Court was considering whether to grant review of In re The Village at Lakeridge, LLC, 814 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2016). Our original post is here. On March 27, 2017, the Supreme Court granted review of Village at Lakeridge, but only as to one question presented, the most boring one in our view.

Editor’s Note: On June 16, 2016, The Bankruptcy Cave gave you our summary of the controversial Sabine decision. At that time, post-hearing motions were pending.

Editor’s Note: On June 16, 2016, The Bankruptcy Cave gave you our previous summary of the controversial Sabine decision.

A recent decision out of a New Jersey Bankruptcy Court highlights a loophole in the Bankruptcy Code which may allow Chapter 7 debtors to keep significant assets out of the hands of trustees and creditors.

This article was first published in the Global Restructuring Review, 14 Jan 2020.

As well as issuing claims in mistake and restitution in the BVI Commercial Court and the US State Supreme Court, the liquidators of Fairfield Sentry Limited (“the Fund”) also petitioned for and, on 22 July 2010 obtained, Chapter 15 recognition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.

National interests play a distinct part in application of the UNCITRAL model law on cross-border insolvency.  

The Model Law