Consider the following scenario. A manufacturing company is experiencing significant financial and operational difficulties. A lender provides it with $20 million secured by a second priority lien and, in connection with this financing, is given two seats on the manufacturer's board of directors. For the next 3 years, the manufacturer continues to suffer losses and the lender continues to extend additional financing. By the third year, the lender has selected three of the company's four board members. At this point, the manufacturer is insolvent, undercapitalized and no disinterested third party will lend it additional money. Nevertheless, the lender extends new financing. No notes are issued for portions of this financing, and the lender does not obtain a valuation to determine whether the manufacturer has collateral to support the new financing. Then the lender, not management, negotiates a sale of the company to occur in the context of a pre-negotiated bankruptcy, with the lender to acquire more than 30% of the stock in the newly formed buyer. The manufacturer files a bankruptcy petition and immediately moves for approval of the sale. The buyer credit bids the lender's claim at the section 363(b) sale, and acquires the company's assets over the objection of the creditors' committee. Should the lender's third-year advances -- made while the company was insolvent and undercapitalized and at a time when no disinterested third party would lend money -- be recharacterized as equity? After examining all of the facts and circumstances, the Third Circuit answered no.
Paul RubinJohn M. AugustPart One of a Two-Part Article
Consider the following scenario. A manufacturing company is experiencing significant financial and operational difficulties. A lender provides it with $20 million secured by a second priority lien and, in connection with this financing, is given two seats on the manufacturer's board of directors.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN The Bankruptcy Strategist
Already have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2026 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
An annual tradition continues as we present the responses to our Legalweek question. For 2026, it was "where are we with prompting"?
The volume and sophistication of work hitting law firm marketing departments is accelerating. That moves the burden from responding to being ready: ready with differentiated positioning, ready with competitive intelligence, ready to get a compelling pitch to the right client before a formal process even begins. That requires more sophisticated output, produced faster, by teams that are already stretched past capacity.
In categories where products are difficult to differentiate on performance, and that describes most of the AI industry today, customers do not choose on features, they choose on trust. Brand integrity, in those markets, is a material business asset.
The annals of copyright decisions could provide a reasonably representative catalog of what our culture has been up to over the past 200 years. A Feb. 3 decision from the Southern District of New York is a case in point. It involves a sex-trafficking conspiracy, Tweets attacking a troubled crypto firm, and a claimed transfer of copyright ownership through a restitution order in a criminal case, all over an undercurrent of competing First Amendment and victim-privacy concerns.
Matthew McConaughey secured eight federal trademark registrations covering his voice and iconic catchphrases in a novel legal strategy aimed at combating AI’s unauthorized use of his voice and likeness. The move signals an important evolution in the power dynamics between talent/brands and the companies providing generative AI tools.
