“Why is electricity so expensive these days? Why does it cost so much for something I can make with a balloon and my hair?” – Dennis Miller
To paraphrase Samuel Johnson, publication notice is, quite often, the debtor’s “last refuge.” Yet it is frequently a necessary feature of the notices provided in bankruptcy cases. Debtors rarely possess an accurate method for notifying the many unidentifiable potential claimants. And so enters publication notice. Pursuant to well-settled law, publication notice – if sufficient – may satisfy the requirement to provide due process to unknown creditors in a bankruptcy proceeding.
As this Blog has discussed in a number of recent posts, free and clear sales under section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code often lead to disputes over whether section 363(f) can strip assets of particular types of claims and interests. Although section 363(f) plays an important role in maximizing the value of a debtor’s assets in a section 363 sale, adversely affected parties may object to those assets being sold free and clear of their claims.
Walk a mile in my shoes
Walk a mile in my shoes
Yeah, before you abuse, criticize and accuse
Walk a mile in my shoes
(Elvis Presley, “Walk a Mile in My Shoes”)
Walk a mile in these Louboutins
But they don’t wear these *%!# where I’m from
I’m not hating, I’m just telling you
The conflict between sections 363(f) and 365(h) of the Bankruptcy Code involves the question of whether a debtor-le
As we’ve noted on several occasions, parties in interest in a bankruptcy case generally hope for “big money – no whammies” (“
In this Throwback Thursday piece, we revisit the Seventh Circuit’s landmark decision Levit v. Ingersoll Rand Financial Corp. (In re Deprizio), better known as Deprizio. This decision was a contender for best quote in a case in Weil’s 2014 March Madness competition. As we noted then, “Mr.
As we previously reported, on April 1, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument inBullard v.
Undersecured creditors may breathe a little easier. In a recent decision, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied the debtors’ request to use an undersecured creditor’s cash collateral, in the form of postpetition rents, to pay estate professional fees, holding that the undersecured creditor was not adequately protected even though the value of its collateral was stable and possibly increasing.