The equitable theory of veil piercing, intended to serve as a rectifying mechanism against certain fraud, dishonesty or wrongdoing, is of particular import in the bankruptcy context given that it is an attractive remedy for a creditor of an insolvent company hoping to obtain a greater recovery on its claim. State law governs veil piercing claims and sets forth the hurdles a party must overcome in order to persuade the bankruptcy court that the debtor’s corporate formalities should be ignored.

The conflict between sections 363(f) and 365(h) of the Bankruptcy Code involves the question of whether a debtor-le

To celebrate the one event that affects workplace productivity worldwide, we bring you our World Cup edition of Weil’s Bankruptcy Beach (or, in this case, multitasking while sitting in front of a screen for eight hours) Reading.

Who are we kidding? The topic of statutory insiders has been a blog favorite, year after year.

In Part I of our entry on Weinman v. Walker (In re Adam Aircraft Indus.

“I’ll be representing, representing” – Ludacris feat. Kelly Rowland

Readers may recall that, according to at least one bankruptcy court, chapter 9 debtors are not required to obtain bankruptcy court approval of compromises and settlements.

In the approach to bankruptcy, struggling businesses may experience problems performing their contracts, and counterparties often see trouble on the horizon. What can a non-debtor counterparty do to protect itself? And how are its rights impaired when the debtor finally commences a bankruptcy case?

In Part II of this three-part entry, we mentioned that the District Court for

What do you get when you combine a 20+ year old bankruptcy, a contaminated landfill, and a state regulatory agency that moves at a glacial pace? The answer: In re Solitron Devices, Inc., a recent decision from the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida.