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
Some bankruptcy cases can have long tails with issues developing years after the entities confirm their chapter 11 plans. That seems to be particularly true when cases deal with mass torts. As the recent case of Piper Aircraft Corporation demonstrates, an issue can arise in a chapter 11 case over twenty years after the debtor’s plan was confirmed. In
The High Court in London gave judgment on parts A and B of the Lehman Waterfall II Application on 31 July 2015. The application is part of the ongoing dispute as to the distribution of the estimated surplus of more than £7 billion in the main Lehman operating company in Europe, Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE).
It has been a few years since we at the Blog have discussed the Barton doctrine, the common law bankruptcy rule requiring a party to seek leave from the appointing court before suing a court-appointed receiver (see here and
There is a common misconception that lender liability is a thing of the past. However, a recent decision provides a warning to lenders that they can be held liable and face substantial damages if they exercise excessive control over a debtor’s business affairs.
Executive Summary
Introduction
In the majority of surveyed deals (55%), Sponsor-backed IPO companies availed themselves of at least some “controlled company” exemptions available under applicable listing requirements, which, among other things, exempt such companies from certain board and committee director independence requirements (other than with respect to the audit committee).
The Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated ruling yesterday in the First Circuit case of Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, resolving a circuit split that had developed on “whether [a] debtor‑licensor’s rejection of an [executory trademark licensing agreement] deprives the licensee of its rights to use the trademark.” And it answered that question in the negative; i.e., in favor of licensees.
In a recent decision, In re Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., No. 18-10518 (KG) (Bankr. D. Del. Nov. 13, 2018), Judge Kevin Gross of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held that the mutuality requirement of section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code must be strictly construed, declining to find mutuality in a triangular setoff between the debtor, a parent entity that owed the debtor money, and that entity’s subsidiary, which was a creditor.