In January 2021, we published an article exploring the legislative history and broad provisions of subchapter V of chapter 11 as they relate to asset sales.[1] In that article, we acknowledged that liquidation and going-concern sales are possible under subchapter V, but predicted that
We hope this report finds you and your family doing well. 2021 was another year of lockdowns and Zoom meetings, but also COVID-19 shots and slowly returning to the real world. Our committee leadership has strived to help its members navigate the ever-changing world of distressed sales via access to helpful content and the opportunity to engage in discussions on topics relevant to asset sales.
The Asset Sales Committee is actively soliciting nominations for the Fourth Annual ABI Asset Sales Committee Sale of the Year Award. Details are set forth below. Please submit your best deal.
Friday, March 18, 2022
![Photo of Jonathan D’Andrea [1]](https://abi-org-corp.s3.amazonaws.com/committee/Authors/DAndrea_2.png)
One of the primary purposes of chapter 11 is to maximize the value of a debtor’s assets.
ABI’s Asset Sales Committee announced that In re Verity Health System of California Inc., Case No. 2:18-bk-20151-ER (C.D. Cal.), won the committee’s third annual “Asset Sale of the Year” award.
Two recent district court decisions, each involving appeals of a bankruptcy sale order where the appellant(s) failed to obtain a stay pending appeal, provide insight into statutory mootness under § 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code. In both In re HDR Holdings Inc.[1] and Barnes v.
More U.S. companies filed bankruptcies with liabilities exceeding $1 billion in 2020 than in any year since 2009.[1] Bankruptcy courts are often left with difficult decisions in these complex bankruptcies, including whether to approve the winning bid in an asset sale under § 363.
“Stalking horse” is a term that instills hope in the minds of creditors and debtors while striking fear in the hearts of other bidders. When running a § 363 sale process, identifying a stalking-horse bidder (the bidder that submits the highest and best initial bid) lays the groundwork for the rest of the proceedings.
Recent allegations of impropriety of bidders in the reorganization of Neiman Marcus Group Ltd. LLC should serve as a reminder to study the line between mere auction strategy and collusive bidding. The word “collusion” itself seems to cause confusion whenever it is uttered in the political or legal realms.
One of the hallmarks of purchasing assets from a bankruptcy estate under § 363 of the Bankruptcy Code is the perceived ability of a buyer to purchase those assets “free and clear of any interest in such property” if certain conditions are met.[1] A common phrasing in many motions seeking to sell assets under § 363 is that the assets ar
The October 2nd conference call for ABI's Asset Sales Committee provided a brief overview of the Fisker Automotive opinions, as well as their progeny, including Free-Lance Star. The discussion also explored the practical implications of those decisions for practitioners representing different constituents in a restructuring. The call was led by Oscar N. Pinkas of Dentons US LLP in New York, and Justin F. Paget of Hunton & Williams LLP in Richmond, Virginia.
