Skip to main content

Bankruptcy & Restructuring

Viewpoints

Filter by:

The Supreme Court has spoken once again on the limited jurisdiction of the bankruptcy courts, adding to the understanding derived from Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982), Granfinanciera v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33 (1989), Langenkamp v. Culp, 498 U.S. 42 (1990) and Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011).
The First Circuit Court of Appeals in In re SW Boston Hotel Venture, LLC, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6768 (1st Cir. Apr. 11, 2014) recently ruled on a number of issues critical to valuing a secured claim in bankruptcy.
When doing business with a foreign company, it is important to identify the company’s “center of main interests” (“COMI”) as creditors may find themselves bound by the laws of the COMI locale.
In a recent decision by the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, the court adopted a flexible approach to consensual third party releases in a plan of reorganization.
In Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases, the absolute priority rule requires a debtor’s creditors be paid in full before equity investors receive any value.
When a debtor rejects an executory contract, Section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code allows a licensee of intellectual property to retain certain rights under the rejected contract. An important question arises, therefore, whether a particular agreement indeed involves a license.
Sign up to receive email updates from Mintz.
Subscribe Now

Explore Other Viewpoints: