What Should You Know About the Rules of Evidence?
February 09, 2004
Bankruptcy lawyers who rarely visit a courtroom may think they do not need to worry about the rules of evidence. Yet evidentiary rules can provide critical protections. In a typical case or negotiation, lawyers create and circulate tremendous amounts of information -- much of which would be potentially damaging if obtained by other parties. To protect this information, bankruptcy lawyers need to be familiar with the rules of evidence and how courts have interpreted these rules.
Official Committee Members: Fiduciary Duty Liability
February 09, 2004
Members of official creditors' committees in Chapter 11 cases owe a fiduciary duty to the entire body of unsecured creditors. <i>See Woods v. City National Bank</i>, 312 U.S. 262, 268-69 (1941). As fiduciaries, committee members should have undivided loyalty to those they serve, free of any conflict of interest. <i>Id</i>. The imposition of such a broad duty to unsecured creditors generally might be otherwise unremarkable, except that committee members themselves obviously have significant selfish interests in the outcome of the bankruptcy case.
When to Use a 'Stalking Horse' Agreement
January 01, 2004
A debtor has a fiduciary duty to maximize the value of the assets of its estate. When selling assets of a bankruptcy estate, the process usually begins with an extensive marketing process. As a result of extensive marketing, a debtor can find itself actively negotiating with numerous potential purchasers. While most marketing periods end with a court-approved auction, it has become commonplace for the debtor to enter into the auction process with a "stalking horse" agreement in place.
Selling 'Free and Clear': Will It Continue?
January 01, 2004
Section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code provides an extraordinary tool to trustees and debtors in possession -- the ability to sell property "free and clear." This unique power, unavailable to a seller outside bankruptcy, not only facilitates the tasks of liquidation or reorganization, but it may even be the critical incentive for entering bankruptcy in the first place. It has now become the principal focus of many Chapter 11 cases.
Clearing the Confusion
January 01, 2004
As explained in last month's article, there has been a great deal of confusion in the courts regarding Section 365(b)(2)(D). In a detailed opinion on appeal, the Ninth Circuit diverged from two lower courts, holding that the most natural reading of subsection (b)(2)(d) requires a finding that the word "penalty" modifies both "rate" and "provision." This ruling, as discussed in last month's article, caused further confusion in the courts as to interpretation.
Guidelines for Director Decision Making in Chapter 11
December 01, 2003
Chapter 11 is designed to enable a company in financial distress to preserve its business as a going concern and maximize the distributable value to creditors. This may be accomplished through the debtor's rehabilitation of its business and restructuring of its balance sheet through a stand-alone plan of reorganization or through the sale of its assets or businesses pursuant to section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code (or a Chapter 11 plan). The best course of action to preserve the debtor as a going concern and maximize value is dependent on the facts and circumstances of the Chapter 11 case and the interests of the relevant stakeholders.
Confusion About Section 365(b)(2)(D)
December 01, 2003
It is generally understood that bankruptcy law requires debtors to cure all contractual defaults before assuming any executory contract because debtors would receive a windfall without such requirement: They could assume (and compel performance on) contracts that they had breached without paying any resulting damages claim. If such a result were permitted under the Code, failing companies would have even less incentive to continue performing on contracts pre-petition because they could presumably seek to assume those contracts in bankruptcy without penalty.
