When a bankruptcy case is dismissed for cause pursuant to section 1112(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, the effect of the dismissal on orders entered during the case is not always clear. A recent District of Delaware decision,
“Aside from their inconsistency with empirical data, proposals to “reform” the Bankruptcy Code must overcome a more basic reality: The current Code works exceedingly well.”
– LSTA Response
Congress made clear in its enactment of section 503(b)(3)(D) of the Bankruptcy Code that, to the extent a creditor makes a substantial contribution in a chapter 9 or chapter 11 bankruptcy case, that creditor should be rewarded. Because the reward — reimbursement of fees and expenses as administrative expenses of the estate —
In American Federated Title Corp. v. GFI Management Services, Inc., the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code provides debtors an efficient and flexible mechanism to dispose of substantially all estate assets outside of the confines of the Bankruptcy Code’s provisions concerning plan confirmation. The Third Circuit’s recent decision in
“So many years we’ve tried
To keep our love alive
But baby it ain’t over ’til it’s over”
-Lenny Kravitz – “It Ain’t Over ’Til It’s Over”
Although the Weil Bankruptcy Blog generally focuses on developments in the chapter 11 context, from time to time we cover cases outside of the bankruptcy world that may interest our readers. Among the challenges restructuring professionals frequently face are analyzing bond indentures, identifying parties’ respective rights to determine whether potential transactions are permissible, and invoking their clients’ rights to payment and other protections. As we have seen in the recent decisions in
Over the course of almost a decade of litigation as part of an individual debtor’s chapter 7 bankruptcy case, the bankruptcy judge, in In re Tucker, made “half a dozen or so” comments about the debtor’s demeanor, credibility, and litigation strategy, including referring to the debtor as a “crook,” “dirty bird,” and a “skillful manipulator.” The debtor filed a motion for recusal, arguing the judge