Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
How do bankruptcy judges resolve the competing desires of buyers and tenants? Must buyers bid for property knowing that tenants might have the right to stay if their leases are rejected? Are tenants in jeopardy that they might have to move elsewhere to live or work?
Chapter 11 cases take less time from start to finish than they did 10 to 15 years ago. Companies often don’t file these days to stay in business but to sell assets and liquidate. Sometimes the key assets are buildings where people have their homes or businesses sell their goods. Buyers will want to update buildings they purchase to attract new tenants who can pay more than current ones. But current tenants might want to stay where they are and not move.
Continue reading by getting
started with a subscription.
Landmines In Bankruptcy Appellate Practice, Part III
By Michael L. Cook
When courts have made important exceptions in the past year, they have either added a gloss on the Judicial Code, corrected lawyers’ errors, filled in statutory gaps, or clarified the relevant statutory language.
A Strategic Guide for Lenders to Navigate Anticipated Distressed Loan Fallout
By Jay Steinman and Karina Leiter
The steps outlined in this article offer a strategic guide for lenders, empowering them to navigate the complexities of loan workouts and enforcement actions with resilience and foresight.
Third Circuit: Bankruptcy Code Mandates Appointment of Examiner In Chapter 11 Cases
By Francis J. Lawall and Brenden S. Dahrouge
The Third Circuit recently held in 'In re FTX Trading' that the plain text of Section 1104(c)(2) mandates the appointment of an examiner under the specified conditions set forth. As a result, the FTX decision will carry significant implications for large and medium-sized bankruptcy cases.
By Lawrence J. Kotler and Ryan Spengler
The Central District of California court held that a bankruptcy court’s administration of cannabis-related state court claims against a debtor’s estate is not a violation of the Controlled Substances Act.