If cramdown failures are par for the course, why are we all so fascinated with them? One thing is certain: they always provide a good teaching moment for practitioners. Marlow Manor’s chapter 11 single asset real estate case is no different.
A recent decision out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit serves as a powerful reminder of why lawyers are taught to take care in even the most ministerial of tasks. In Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Motors Liquidation Co. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
Like many of our readers, we at the Bankruptcy Blog spent our holiday breaks curled up with our copies of the American Bankruptcy Institute Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 Final Report and Recommendations, which by now are quite dog-eared.
While some of us may have had turkey on the mind over the last few days following the Thanksgiving holiday, members of the U.S. House of Representatives clearly had more important things than turkey to ponder. Just yesterday, December 1, 2014, the House passed H.R. 5421, the Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act of 2014.
Yesterday, many citizens all over the country voted for local and state leaders and proposed ballot measures in their districts. Social media was abuzz with uploaded photos of individuals donning “I voted” stickers, and timelines were flooded with status messages urging people to exercise their civic rights and vote. Nevertheless, there were also those that opted not to vote, and their respective reasons varied.
In case you were wondering, Columbus Day is in the top ten of “legal holidays” that Bankruptcy Rule 9006 recognizes. Although the Weil Bankruptcy Blog is observing the holiday, we thought it provided a good opportunity to remind everyone of the diminished significance of legal holidays under Rule 9006.
The extent of a transferee’s knowledge in the context of fraudulent transfer claims under the Bankruptcy Code has been a frequent topic of discussion on the Weil Bankruptcy Blog.
In 1932, J. Howard Marshall and William O.
In the world of bank holding company bankruptcies, often a dispute arises between the parent company and the FDIC (as receiver for parent’s failed bank subsidiary) over the ownership of the tax refunds issued to the bank’s consolidated group pursuant to a consolidated tax return.
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.