%1

Parties enter into contracts to get the benefit of their bargain. Loan agreements are no different.[1] If a credit facility has a term of five years, the borrower should expect to pay interest for five years. Unless negotiated, borrowers generally do not have an unfettered right to repay their debts early because this would deprive the lender of its bargained-for consideration.

On Feb. 25, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision holding that a trustee is not barred by either the presumption against extraterritoriality or by international comity principles from recovering property from a foreign subsequent transferee that received the property from a foreign initial transferee.

          As transactional business attorneys, we strive to craft documents that are bullet-proof, covering every what-if scenario should a deal fall apart. We hope that the agreements we draft will result in a fair and just consequence for all parties to the bargain.

           In the multi-billion-dollar claims-trading market, your offer and acceptance might not be what you thought it was. While the bankruptcy court in its recent decision In re Westinghouse Electric Company LLC et al.[1] would not establish terms of custom in the industry of claims trading, especially when dealing with nonindustry players, the bankruptcy court did provide guidance as to what would not constitute a binding agreement or a Type II contract.

          Imagine that Hal Steinbrenner agreed to purchase the Boston Red Sox from John Henry, Tom Werner and Larry Lucchino. All three signed non-compete agreements promising to buy no interest in an MLB team for the next five years. Steinbrenner made a $1 billion down payment, and MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred signed off on everything. But shortly after all the parties signed the final contract, Steinbrenner filed a bankruptcy petition.

                 Third-party releases can be an integral part of a chapter 11 bankruptcy case. These releases can have the effect of a nonconsensual resolution of state law claims, and a question exists as to how they are implicated in a Stern v. Marshall analysis. In the fourth opinion issued by the district court in the Millenium Labs Holdings II LLC bankruptcy,[1] Judge Leonard P.

A seller of goods who enjoys a casual relationship with a buyer — without adhering to strict documentation and enforcement standards — can find itself in dire straits in the event of that buyer’s insolvency. Many sellers operate without agreements and rely on purchase orders and invoices to document their customer relationships, and may also fail to investigate potential security interests that might prime those sellers’ interests in delivered goods come the buyer’s insolvency.