Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Employees of a troubled company who stay on as consultants to assist in liquidating its assets or preparing the company for a bankruptcy filing may later be disappointed to face claims to claw back their prepetition compensation. Ironically, those who made it possible for the company to maximize the recovery on its assets or to file for bankruptcy, may be sued by a bankruptcy trustee for the return of monies received within 90 days of the bankruptcy filing as preferential payments.
While trade vendors and other unsecured creditors may be familiar with such claims, there are nuances to preference litigation against prepetition consultants that add layers of complexity not generally present in typical preference actions. While the same defenses against other preference claims are available to prepetition consultants, application of the defenses in this context requires consideration of certain factors that are not often scrutinized in the garden variety preference case.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
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.
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.
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.
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.