Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The current $7.5 million debt cap which a debtor cannot exceed, pursuant to Bankruptcy Code §1182, to qualify to elect Subchapter V treatment (under Code §103) is well understood: the amount doesn't include debts that are owed to an affiliate or an insider; for purposes of calculating the cap, the debts of the particular debtor must be aggregated with the debts of any affiliate that is also in bankruptcy; and the cap is determined as of the Petition Date.
These limitations suggest that Subchapter V will be of no use to all but very small companies, smaller than those likely to be advised by readers of this publication. That may be so, but before turning completely away from the topic, consider two things. First, debts that are contingent or unliquidated do not count toward the cap. Second, consider your client's owner — if the owner has provided credit enhancements to company creditors in the form of personal guarantees.
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.