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.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 57

Dodd-Frank’s intersection with the Bankruptcy Code could have significant impact for unsecured creditors

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 21 2014

On February 11th, the three private plaintiff-appellants and eleven State plaintiff-appellants in State National Bank of Big Spring, et al. V. Jacob

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals finds that individual managers of a bankrupt corporation can be held liable for employees' unpaid wages

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 29 2009

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held on July 27, 2009 in Boucher v. Shaw that individual managers of a bankrupt corporation can be held liable to the corporation's former employees for unpaid wages under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"

Lenders beware -- Fifth Circuit has lowered the bar for cramdown plan confirmation

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 29 2013

In a recent Fifth Circuit decision, Western Real Estate Equities, LLC v. Village at Camp Bowie I, L.P., No. 12-10271 (5th Cir. 2013), the court held

Second Circuit holds that most important factor in assessing pre-plan settlement distribution under Rule 9019 is whether it complies with the absolute priority rule

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 27 2007

On March 7, 2007, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that "in the Chapter 11 context, whether a pre-plan settlement's distribution plan complies with the Bankruptcy Code's priority scheme will be the most important factor for a Bankruptcy Court to Consider in approving a settlement under Bankruptcy Rule 9019."

The Ninth Circuit rules on plan feasibility

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 26 2007

In the case of Sherman v. Harbin (In re Harbin), the Ninth Circuit decided that in determining the feasibility of a plan under Bankruptcy Code Section 1129(a)(11), a court must evaluate the possible impact of pending litigation, whether at the trial level or on appeal

Canonized credit-bidding: the Supreme Court unanimously affirms secured creditor's right to credit-bid at free and clear sale in plan

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 8 2012

On May 29, 2012, the Supreme Court ruled 8-0 that a debtor could not confirm a plan over a secured creditor’s objection if the plan provided for the sale of the secured creditor’s collateral free and clear of liens, but did not provide the secured creditor with the option of credit-bidding at the sale

Equityholder's strategy for shifting tax burdens to creditors upheld by Third Circuit

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 12 2013

In re Majestic Star Casino, LLC, F.3d 736 (3rd Cir. 2013), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit broke from other courts by holding that

Delaware Supreme Court holds receiver is required to defend lawsuits after a corporation is wound-up; finds no generally applicable statute of limitation for claims against a dissolved corporation

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 11 2013

In Anderson v Krafft-Murphy Co. Inc., 2013 Del. LEXIS 597 (Del. Nov. 26, 2013), the Delaware Supreme Court held that Sections 278 and 279 of the

Chapter 9 - California and federal bankruptcy lawrelative bargaining positions

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 29 2012

On June 28, 2012, Stockton, California became the most recent municipality to file for bankruptcy under chapter 9, after having concluded a mandatory mediation process with its creditors

Supreme Court to decide whether to review Seventh Circuit decision holding that bankruptcy does not discharge environmental clean-up liability under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 20 2010

In a decision that may create a significant roadblock for companies saddled with environmental clean-up liability to continue as a going concern, the Seventh Circuit in U.S. v. Apex Oil Company, Inc., 579 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2009) affirmed a district court injunction requiring the clean-up of a contaminated site in Illinois under section 7003 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) despite the company's bankruptcy