Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On May 11, 2021, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Harlin Hale of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a decision dismissing the Chapter 11 case of the National Rifle Association and certain of its affiliates. The high-profile New York-based non-profit sought bankruptcy protection in Texas on Jan. 15, 2021 and immediately faced a bevy of motions seeking dismissal of its Chapter 11 case pursuant to Section 1112(b) of the Bankruptcy Code filed by: 1) a former vendor-turned-litigation adversary, Ackerman McQueen, Inc.; 2) the New York Attorney General (NYAG); and 3) the District of Columbia Attorney General. A separate motion seeking the appointment of an examiner pursuant to section 1104(c) of the Bankruptcy Code was also filed. This article explores the competing factors the Bankruptcy Court considered and the rationale underlying its decision to grant the drastic relief of dismissing the NRA’s bankruptcy case.
Continue reading by getting
started with a subscription.
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.
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.
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.