Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On Jan. 10, 2014, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the bankruptcy court) in In re Fisker Automotive Holdings, Inc., et al., capped a secured creditor's right to credit bid its $168 million claim at only $25 million (the amount it paid to purchase the claim). The secured creditor immediately appealed to the district court. As a procedural matter, the secured creditor had an absolute right to have its appeal heard only if the bankruptcy court's ruling was considered a “final order.” If it was not a “final order,” then the district court had discretion to hear the merits of the appeal. On Feb. 7, 2014, the district court determined that the bankruptcy court order was not final, and declined to hear the appeal. In doing so, however, the district court made sweeping statements regarding the bankruptcy court's authority to limit or otherwise deny a secured creditor the right to credit bid. Eleven days later, the bankruptcy court approved the sale of the debtors' assets to a third party. The secured creditor has since consented to the sale and withdrawn its appeal.
While the bankruptcy court has stated that its decision is non-precedential, it serves as a cautionary tale for secured lenders who may want to credit bid to acquire a debtor's assets.
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
Blockchain domain names offer decentralized alternatives to traditional DNS-based domain names, promising enhanced security, privacy and censorship resistance. However, these benefits come with significant challenges, particularly for brand owners seeking to protect their trademarks in these new digital spaces.