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.
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.
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).
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?
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.
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.
The Ninth Circuit recently announced in Mastan v. Salamon (In re Salamon) 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.
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?
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).
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.
