Features

Court Holds That Deposits Would Be Hypothetical
In a recent ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that bankruptcy courts may permissibly engage in "hypotheticals within hypotheticals" so long as the inquiry is factually warranted and is supported by appropriate evidence, and provided further that the hypothetical action would not contravene any other provision of the Bankruptcy Code.
Features

Bankruptcy Litigation Update: Determining Adequate Capital
This article focuses on the concept of "unreasonably small capital," which is not defined in the Bankruptcy Code or applicable state statutes. Consequently, the determination of adequate capital is fact-intensive and fertile grounds for litigation.
Features

POCs and the FDCPA: A License to File
Buyers and servicers of “stale,” or time-barred, debt have been watching the bankruptcy and appellate courts closely of late, as court after court has ruled on whether a key component of their recovery strategy — seeking payment related to such time-barred debts by filing proofs of claim in bankruptcy — violates the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA).
Features

Product Liability, Bankruptcy and the Proceeds of Legal Action
A recent case dealt with an unusual question presented to a bankruptcy court by a debtor's medical device product liability claim: If, at the time of bankruptcy filing, the debtor has a potential civil claim that lacks some of the elements necessary for recovery (which elements may never develop), yet later receives settlement, are the proceeds of that settlement part of the bankruptcy estate?
Features

Product Liability, Bankruptcy and the Proceeds of Legal Action
When does a cause of action accrue for an injury caused by an implanted medical device? This is a question that usually comes up when determining whether an allegedly injured plaintiff has brought his or her lawsuit in a timely enough manner to keep the claim from being thrown out on statute of limitations grounds. But if the case has been settled, or tried to a verdict that is not appealed, aren't we done with this question? Not necessarily.
Features

Third Circuit Sides With Creditors in EFIH Make-Whole Dispute
At the end of last year, the Third Circuit added to several recent decisions addressing whether a creditor was entitled to payment of a "make- whole" premium in connection with a Chapter 11 case. The court's opinion is the most creditor-friendly decision issued to date on this topic.
Features

Ninth Circuit Finds That 1111(b) Deemed-Recourse Rights Do Not Survive Foreclosure Of Underlying Property
The Ninth Circuit recently announced in <I>Mastan v. Salamon (In re Salamon</I>) that a secured creditor with a nonrecourse mortgage cannot assert a claim for any deficiency if the underlying property is foreclosed on during the bankruptcy case. Here's an analysis of the decision.
Features

Equipment Lessors and Bankruptcy
Much has been written about the risk that a transaction denominated and documented as an equipment "lease" may be recharacterized a security interest. Equipment lessors seem to understand. Interestingly, equipment lessors commonly seem to not understand all of the rights and remedies they have in the absence of recharacterization. So, what's a true equipment lessor to do in the face of the Chapter 11 of its lessee?
Features

POCs and the FDCPA: A License to File
Buyers and servicers of "stale," or time-barred, debt have been watching the bankruptcy and appellate courts closely of late, as court after court has ruled on whether a key component of their recovery strategy -- seeking payment related to such time-barred debts by filing proofs of claim in bankruptcy -- violates the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA).
Features

Cayman Court Facilitates Chapter 11 Restructuring of Parent Company
the authors were heavily involved in the cross-border restructuring of CHC Group Ltd. (CHC Parent). CHC Parent was the ultimate holding company of the CHC Group (the Group), being one of the world's largest commercial helicopter services providers, primarily engaged in servicing the offshore oil and gas industry. This article provides a narrative about the case.
Need Help?
- Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
- Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.
MOST POPULAR STORIES
- The Article 8 Opt InThe Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.Read More ›
- Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult CoinWith each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.Read More ›
- Clause & EffectNet-Profit Rights/Movies Based on TV Shows<br>Insurance/Contract-Breach Exclusion<br>Insurance/Copyright-Infringement CoverageRead More ›
- Rights and Obligations In Patent LicensesThe owner of a commercially successful patent may have competing desires. On one hand, the patent owner wants to protect the patent and secure its maximum benefit; on the other hand, the patent owner wants to avoid enforcement litigation with competitors because it is expensive and puts the patent at risk.Read More ›
- Foreseeability as a Bar to Proof of Patent InfringementThe doctrine of equivalents is a rule of equity adopted more than 150 years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. Prosecution history estoppel is a rule of equity that controls access to the doctrine. In May 2002, the Court was called upon to revisit the doctrine and the estoppel rule in <i>Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. Ltd.</i> Ultimately the Court reaffirmed the doctrine and expanded the estoppel rule, but not without inciting heated debate over the Court's rationale — especially since it included a new and controversial foreseeability test in its analysis for estoppel.Read More ›