Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Bankruptcy “does not constitute a per se breach of contract and does not excuse performance by the other party in the absence of some further indication that the [debtor] either cannot, or does not, intend to perform,” held the Supreme Court of Connecticut in a lengthy opinion on Nov. 21, 2017. CCT Communications, Inc. v. Zone Telecom, Inc., 2017 WL 5477540, *13 (Ct. Nov. 21, 2017) (en banc), superseding 324 Conn. 654, 153A.3d 1249 (2017).
By Mark S. Melickian and Jack O’Connor
The battle over retaining a chief restructuring officer, which the United States Trustee has traditionally not objected to, is heating up.
By Michael L. Cook
A bankruptcy court properly dismissed a creditor’s involuntary bankruptcy petition “for cause” when it “would serve none of the Bankruptcy Code’s goals or purposes … and [when] the sole [petitioning] creditor is not substantially prejudiced by remedies available under state law,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in In re Murray.
By John A. Thomson, Jr.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling has significantly constricted the range and nature of statements that will support a successful objection by a creditor to the discharge of a debt that was obtained by the statements in question. This constriction could have a very real impact on how entities that loan money or provide services on credit review and collect information regarding a borrower’s creditworthiness.
By Jacob H. Marshall
How Lenders and Debtors can Minimize UST Fees and Maximize Creditor Recoveries
As predicted in the first part of this article (May, 2018), the new United States Trustee (UST) fee has had a disproportionate effect on middle-market, high-velocity cash flow companies. The best solution is for Congress to revisit the fee structure and refine it to reflect the realities of particular cases and the actual burden on the UST.