Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In January 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found in FTX Trading Ltd., 91 F.4th 148 (3d Cir. 2024) that, if certain statutory requirements are met, appointment of an examiner under section 1104(c) of the Bankruptcy Code is mandatory upon the motion of a party in interest.
This Circuit-level confirmation that the “shall” in the examiner statute does in fact actually mean shall led to concern among bankruptcy practitioners that the now-confirmed mandatory nature of this provision would lead to the weaponization of examiner motions as a tool for delaying cases or exacting unrelated concessions.
This was previously less of a concern as, notwithstanding the statutory language, bankruptcy courts — including those in Delaware and New York — considered examiner appointments discretionary based on the subsequent “as is appropriate” in the text of section 1104(c).
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.
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.
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.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.