We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Peter M. Friedman Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP

Results 1 to 5 of 13



2012 year in review – Part 2 *

USA - December 27 2012
In In re Charter Comm’cns, Inc., 2012 WL 3764706 (2d Cir. Aug. 31, 2012), the Second Circuit adopted an abuse of discretion standard for reviewing…

Co-authors: Doug Mintz, Joseph Zujkowski.


2012 year in review – part 1 *

USA - December 21 2012
On March 9, 2012, Susheel Kirplani, the Court-appointed examiner in Dynegy Holdings, LLC’s bankruptcy case, issued a report setting forth his findings and…

Co-authors: Doug Mintz, Joseph Zujkowski.


Fifth Circuit finds that an electricity requirements contract is a “forward contract” exempt from Bankruptcy Code’s avoidance powers *

USA - October 11 2012
On August 2, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a requirements contract for electricity is a forward contract for purposes of section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code and, therefore, settlement payments made under the contract are exempt from avoidance as preferences.

Co-authors: Kenneth W. Irvin, Sarah Tucker , Audrey Aden Doline , Matthew J. Oliver.


RadLAX review – Supreme Court requires debtor to permit credit bidding *

USA - May 29 2012
The Supreme Court held 8-0 that section 1129(b)(2) of the bankruptcy code requires that if a debtor proposes to sell property under a plan of reorganization it must permit secured lenders to submit credit bids in the sale process. 


Just when I thought I was out . . . Eleventh Circuit rules in TOUSA that refinanced lenders can be “pulled back in” and held liable if a replacement loan is a fraudulent transfer *

USA - May 18 2012
On May 15, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, which required certain lenders to return $403 million in prepetition payments they had received from TOUSA, Inc. because the new loan TOUSA obtained to make those payments was a fraudulent transfer.

Co-authors: W. Joshua Brant , Timothy T. Brown , Douglas S. Mintz.


Next »