The last major revision to U.S. business reorganization laws occurred in 1978. In the nearly four decades since then, the markets and financial products, as well as the industry itself, have evolved. Accordingly, ABI established the Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 to evaluate the U.S.
Most bankruptcy attorneys are born negotiators. It is part of our DNA to zealously advocate for our client’s position and simultaneously explore options for consensual resolution. Unfortunately, many bankruptcy disputes cannot be resolved this way. Perhaps the client has unrealistic expectations, or perhaps there is a personality conflict between the lawyers and their clients.
Following a nearly-three-year study, on Dec. 8, 2014, the ABI Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 published a 400-page report containing recommendation and principles for policymakers. This article focuses on chapter 11 reform relating to professional retention and compensation.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an opinion on Jan. 21, 2015,[1] holding that a UCC-3 termination statement was effective to extinguish a security interest of up to as much as $1.5 billion, notwithstanding that the secured lender erroneously authorized the filing of the termination statement and did not intend to extinguish the security interest.
Privacy issues are not new to corporate reorganizations; §§ 322 and 363(b)(1) were enacted as part of BAPCPA precisely to address such concerns.[1] In an increasingly digital age, reorganizing debtors may possess a slew of personally identifiable information (PII), itself a term defined at § 101(41A).
One of the fundamental rights afforded to a debtor is the right to reject burdensome contracts and unexpired leases. However, where the debtor is the lessor of real property or the assignor of intellectual property, rejection of the underlying agreement could be catastrophic to the nondebtor counterparty.
Every dollar counts, and for debtors that are party to tax-sharing agreements (“TSAs”), significant dollars may be at stake. As the Sixth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals have demonstrated, when dealing with tax refunds and TSAs, it is not always clear that a debtor’s estate is entitled to every dollar.
This two-part article discusses how the United Kingdom and the United States have become the two main jurisdictions where debtors outside of such jurisdictions (foreign debtors) have been able to successfully restructure their businesses.
Bankruptcy Code § 365(n) provides significant protections to licensees under intellectual property licenses that are rejected by debtor-licensors.[1] Section 365(n) permits a licensee to retain its rights in licensed intellectual property post-rejection in exchange for the continued payment of royalties.
