A recent decision from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas caught our eye because of the unconventional opening line:
“Summers are hot in Texas, so pools are a hot item. But not hot enough to help a pool installer [ . . . ] avoid bankruptcy” – Judge Tony M. Davis, United States Bankruptcy Judge.
What happens when the counterparties on both sides of a contract are debtors in separate bankruptcy cases and their estates have contrary views about whether to reject or assume a contract?
Federal bankruptcy law can benefit debtors and creditors alike. Provisions such as the automatic stay and absolute priority ensure a streamlined proceeding, preserving the debtor’s scarce resources for business rehabilitation and creditor repayment. The alternative, multiple state court debt enforcement actions, would waste the debtor’s time and money on litigation (as valuable as bankruptcy lawyers may be).
Last week, we reviewed the recent decision of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York that granted recognition to the Brazilian bankruptcy proceedings of three entities in the OAS Group (“OAS”), a Brazilian infrastructure enterprise. Part I of this series focused on the facts of the OAS cases and the objections to recognition interposed by two signific
Whether a contract is executory is an often-litigated issue in bankruptcy because of the treatment afforded to such contracts. Although the Bankruptcy Code does not define the term “executory contract,” most courts follow a variation of the definition provided by Professor Vern Countryman in a 1973 law review article.
Background: Professionals’ Fees in Chapter 11 cases
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 In re Intervention Energy Holdings, LLC, the question before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware was whether an investor who “bought and paid for [one] Common Unit (including all rights related thereto),”
Does the bankruptcy filing of a limited liability company without the approval of its “Special Member,” the secured lender serving as “blocking director,” render that filing infirm as unauthorized and subject to dismissal? Not necessarily, held the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois in a