Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Southern District of New York vacated a bankruptcy court’s judgment holding a debtor’s business competitor (C) “in contempt for violation of the [Bankruptcy Code’s] automatic stay … and assessing sanctions” of $19.2 million. In re Windstream Holdings, Inc., 2022 WL 5245633, *1 (2) (S.D.N.Y. Oct 6, 2022). The bankruptcy court had erroneously sanctioned C for a “literally false and intentionally misleading advertising campaign” to lure subscribers away from the debtor, mistakenly reasoning that C’s advertisements violated the automatic stay by suggesting the debtor was going out of business. Id. According to the district court, though, C’s “advertisements did not violate the … stay, and, in any case, there was a fair ground of doubt whether they did so.” Id. at *3.
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.