Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Harmonizing a Debtor’s Right to File for Bankruptcy Against a Creditor’s Desire to Protect Its Financial Interests
In the United States, a debtor’s ability to seek a fresh financial start through bankruptcy is constitutionally protected. Therefore, courts routinely invalidate restrictions designed to limit a debtor’s ability to file a voluntary bankruptcy petition as void against public policy. Nevertheless, it is not uncommon for a business entity’s governing documents to contain limitations or restrictive requirements that must be satisfied before bankruptcy protection can be sought. Oftentimes, these provisions allow a single person (or entity) to block a bankruptcy filing, whether by holding a “golden share” or simply by withholding consent. How to harmonize a debtor’s right to file against a creditor’s desire to protect its financial interests in that debtor has sparked a number of different judicial opinions.
A recent decision from U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge David Cleary for the Northern District of Illinois addresses this issue head on and found that filing restrictions aren’t always per se violative. See, In re 301 W. North Avenue, Case No. 24 B 2741 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Jan. 6, 2025). Cleary’s decision suggests that when certain protections for the debtor are in place, limitations imposed by creditors on seeking bankruptcy relief are permissible.
Debtor 301 W. North Avenue LLC (301 W. North or the debtor) owned a seven-story apartment building in Chicago with a $30 million business mortgage. As part of the loan package, the lender specifically required that 301 W. North have one independent manager that was acceptable to the lender, and that the entity be “bankruptcy remote.” As a result, 301 W. North entered into an LLC agreement (the LLC agreement), which required that it maintain a board consisting of two managers, including an independent manager satisfactory to the lender who would remain in place as long as the mortgage debt remained outstanding.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The 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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With 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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.