Gene stock – Genetic Science Services http://geneticscienceservices.com/ Mon, 19 Sep 2022 13:17:43 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.9.3 https://geneticscienceservices.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/icon-7.png Gene stock – Genetic Science Services http://geneticscienceservices.com/ 32 32 Court discusses tools for financial reorganization in the event of restructuring or bankruptcy – News https://geneticscienceservices.com/court-discusses-tools-for-financial-reorganization-in-the-event-of-restructuring-or-bankruptcy-news/ Mon, 19 Sep 2022 11:35:57 +0000 https://geneticscienceservices.com/court-discusses-tools-for-financial-reorganization-in-the-event-of-restructuring-or-bankruptcy-news/ Financial Restructuring Committee Holds Second Advisory Board Meeting for 2022 Younis Haji Al Khoori, Undersecretary of the Ministry of Finance and Chairman of the FRC chaired the meeting in Dubai. — Photo provided Relative to staff Published: Mon 19 Sep 2022, 03:35 PM Last update: Mon 19 Sep 2022, 03:36 PM The Financial Restructuring Committee […]]]>

Financial Restructuring Committee Holds Second Advisory Board Meeting for 2022



Younis Haji Al Khoori, Undersecretary of the Ministry of Finance and Chairman of the FRC chaired the meeting in Dubai. — Photo provided

Relative to staff

Published: Mon 19 Sep 2022, 03:35 PM

Last update: Mon 19 Sep 2022, 03:36 PM

The Financial Restructuring Committee (FRC) recently held the second meeting of its Advisory Council, which provides an open forum for discussion between the FRC and experts in the field of financial restructuring of failing companies and bankruptcy cases.

Younis Haji Al Khoori, Undersecretary of the Ministry of Finance (MoF) and Chairman of the FRC chaired the meeting, which was held in Dubai. Were present the lawyer Mohammed Al Suwaidi, president of the CIG; Dr. Hussam Al Talhuni, legal adviser to the Minister of Finance, secretary of the FRC; Mohamad Al Moueiny, deputy secretary of the FRC; and Mira Al Jabri, project manager; as well as a number of financial experts.

Al Khoori underlined the key role played by the Advisory Council in strengthening cooperation between the FRC and experts in the field of financial reorganization of failing companies and bankruptcy files. He also reaffirmed the council’s concern to create an interactive atmosphere with experts and consultants whose practical knowledge meets the best international standards.

“The Advisory Board is an important platform to deliberate on barriers that limit the willingness of the business community to use financial reorganization tools before the FRC or to go to court to seek financial restructuring or bankruptcy,” a- he declared.

The meeting aimed to preview the structure of setting up the FRC Advisory Board, the main objectives behind the formation of the Board, as well as to discuss the development of the financial reorganization service. The meeting also discussed the best ways to communicate relevant information on financial restructuring procedures and how to generalize them to the community.

The meeting also discussed the obstacles and reasons that limit the willingness of the business community to use financial reorganization tools before the FRC or to go to court to seek financial restructuring or bankruptcy.

In addition, members discussed ways to deal with experts in the field of failing business financial reorganization and bankruptcy cases, as well as ways to empower and qualify registered experts. They also reflected on ways to develop programs and train experts, lawyers and magistrates on issues of financial reorganization and bankruptcy.

The members of the Advisory Council are nominated by the members of the FRC, provided that they are experts in the field of financial reorganization and bankruptcy. Members of the Advisory Council currently consist of at least seven members who are natural or legal persons carrying on business in the UAE.

— business@khaleejtimes.com

]]>
Why OxyContin Maker Purdue Pharma is Still Bankrupt https://geneticscienceservices.com/why-oxycontin-maker-purdue-pharma-is-still-bankrupt/ Sat, 17 Sep 2022 09:06:11 +0000 https://geneticscienceservices.com/why-oxycontin-maker-purdue-pharma-is-still-bankrupt/ STAMFORD – Three years ago this week, OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma filed for bankruptcy. Around this time a year ago, he had just gotten approval from a bankruptcy judge for a settlement plan. But today, his bankruptcy remains unfinished. Given the complexity and litigation of the bankruptcy of Stamford-based Purdue – which is trying to […]]]>

STAMFORD – Three years ago this week, OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma filed for bankruptcy. Around this time a year ago, he had just gotten approval from a bankruptcy judge for a settlement plan. But today, his bankruptcy remains unfinished.

Given the complexity and litigation of the bankruptcy of Stamford-based Purdue – which is trying to settle several thousand lawsuits brought against the company over its alleged role in the national opioid crisis – a protracted process was inevitable. Even after resolving long-running disputes with states such as Connecticut, uncertainty remains over the end of the bankruptcy, further heightening concerns over when settlement funds will finally be disbursed to help fight. against an incessant epidemic.

“There have been risks in a bankruptcy process with so many creditors, plaintiffs and states,” Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said in an interview. “I hear from victims and survivors of opioids, and they are concerned that there are always risks in this process. There have always been risks in this process.

In response to a request from Hearst Connecticut Media, Purdue reiterated its intention to enact its settlement plan.

“We made great progress during the bankruptcy. Today, nearly all creditors agree the plan is the fairest and best way to provide billions of dollars of value for victim compensation, opioid crisis relief, and emergency relief medication. overdose,” the company said in a statement. “We are optimistic that the courts will ultimately uphold the confirmation order.”

The company did not make anyone available to interview for this article.

A long and complex process

By seeking Chapter 11 protection, Purdue has consolidated thousands of lawsuits filed in recent years by local and state governments across the country, including Connecticutwho allege the company fueled the opioid crisis with deceptive marketing of OxyContin, a prescription opioid that is the company’s top-selling drug. Additionally, more than 135,000 claims on personal injury forms have been filed against the company through bankruptcy.

After about two years in bankruptcy proceedings, Purdue’s settlement plan last year garnered resounding support from voting creditors and then won backing from the presiding bankruptcy judge. But when Judge Robert Drain approved the settlement framework in September 2021, Connecticut and several other “unwilling” states appealed the decision because they said the terms offered — including a payment of about $4.3 billion by members of the Sackler family who own the company — were unacceptable.

“Due to the complex nature of the process, it takes a very long time, especially with such a controversial and very public process like this,” Robert Bird, a business law professor at the University of Connecticut, said in an interview. . . “It creates an environment where many contentious issues have to be resolved through the courts before the money is finally paid out.”

Tong and the attorneys general of the other “non-consenting” states were particularly critical of Drain’s endorsement of the plan’s stipulation for “non-debtor releases” that would have forced them to waive their claims against the Sacklers. The Sacklers, who have not personally filed for bankruptcy, have denied allegations by Tong and other attorneys general that they abused the bankruptcy process to shield themselves from liability.

Last March, Connecticut and the other “unwilling” states finally reached a settlement with Purdue and the Sacklers. Among key terms, the Sacklers agreed to increase their contribution to the settlement to $6 billion.

“I will never be satisfied with this process,” Tong said. “I did what I had to do to hold the Sacklers accountable and bring the most value possible to victims and to addiction treatment, prevention and science. But don’t think for a second that I am happy.

Even if no state opposes a settlement any longer, the plan cannot be implemented without additional court approval. Drain’s decision was overturned last December by District Judge Colleen McMahon. She agreed with the “non-consenting” states that the bankruptcy court had no power to compel the states to waive their claims against the Sacklers.

Purdue has appealed McMahon’s decision, but is still awaiting a decision on its appeal from the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. If the Second Circuit finds that the bankruptcy court properly upheld the settlement plan, Purdue officials expect it will take at least two to three months before the company emerges from bankruptcy.

“While the delay due to the district court ruling was unfortunate, the fact that our creditors came together to form the value maximization plan that was upheld by the bankruptcy court is remarkable and sets our timing well. ahead of what we would otherwise be,” Purdue said in its statement. “We believe so strongly in Knoa Pharma’s vision that the wait will have been worth it when Knoa Pharma is able to commit billions of dollars to opioid reduction efforts – where funds are urgently needed.” (Knoa Pharma is the successor company to Purdue, a company that would develop and distribute millions of doses of opioid addiction treatment and overdose medications, according to Purdue’s plan.)

If a party disagrees with the Second Circuit’s decision, it could appeal to the United States Supreme Court. fight non-consensual releases of non-debtors.

Today, the Justice Department, through its bankruptcy-focused U.S. administrator program, stands as the primary opponent among a small number of remaining opponents of the settlement plan. “None of the 50 states, no local governments and none of the hundreds of thousands of creditors continues to appeal our confirmation order,” Purdue said in its statement.

A message left this week at the Department of Justice was not returned. In a statement last December praising McMahon’s decision, Attorney General Merrick Garland said the “bankruptcy court had no power to deprive victims of the opioid crisis of their right to sue the Sackler family.” The department remains committed to opioid reduction efforts and supporting victims of opioid abuse.

As part of a settlement with the Department of Justice, Purdue pleaded guilty in November 2020 to three criminal charges of conspiracy to defraud the government and violation of the anti-bribery law. At the same time, the Sacklers involved with Purdue agreed to a $225 million settlement with the department to resolve allegations of marketing and financial misconduct at Purdue. The Sacklers have admitted no wrongdoing in connection with this agreement.

To the dismay of many, including Tong and Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, the Justice Department has not criminally charged anyone currently or previously involved with Purdue in connection with the company’s guilty plea.

“I’m concerned, and I’m going to ask the DOJ based on their continued opposition” to the settlement plan, Blumenthal, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who sued Purdue when he was the state’s attorney general, says. in an interview. “They owe an explanation to the victims (opioids), in particular.”

The lack of clarity on the endpoint of bankruptcy worries many loved ones of opioid victims and survivors of opioid addiction. They fear further delays or even missing out entirely on the personal injury funds that are included in the settlement plan. Eligible applicants would each receive between $3,500 and $48,000 each, for a total of up to $750 million.

“It seems everyone was worried about getting the lawyers paid, and the states were worried about getting money into the states,” Norwalk resident Dede Yoder, whose son died of an overdose of fentanyl and carfentanil at age 21 in 2017, after being prescribed OxyContin as a teenager, said in an interview “But the real victims of all of this, it’s like we’re not even one of them. And yet, it is about us.

More opioid settlement funds on the way

As Purdue’s bankruptcy drags on, funds from settlements with other companies implicated in the opioid epidemic are already pouring into the state. These funds are urgently needed for treatment and prevention programs to address an ongoing opioid crisis. Last year, there were 1,413 opioid-related deaths in Connecticut, up 11% from 2020, according to the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner.

Of the other colonies to which Connecticut joined, it would receive in years to come about 300 million dollars pharmaceutical distributors Cardinal, McKesson and AmerisourceBergen and drugmaker Johnson & Johnson; approximately $7.5 million consulting firm McKinsey & Co., whose clients included Purdue; and nearly $14 million from drugmaker Mallinckrodt.

In addition, the State is in line to receive amounts to be determined from drugmakers Allergan, Endo and Teva, after Tong’s announcements over the past two months that the state would join settlements with these companies.

“People know that if they played a role in the opioid crisis, they’re in trouble,” Tong said. “Anyone who works for the attorneys general –
or pursue cases with us or defend cases against us – know that Connecticut is a leader in the fight against the addiction industry and that we are very aggressive.

pschott@stamfordadvocate.com; twitter: @paulschott

]]>
Happy Joe’s Pizza files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in Delaware | Business & Economy https://geneticscienceservices.com/happy-joes-pizza-files-for-chapter-11-bankruptcy-in-delaware-business-economy/ Thu, 15 Sep 2022 03:53:44 +0000 https://geneticscienceservices.com/happy-joes-pizza-files-for-chapter-11-bankruptcy-in-delaware-business-economy/ Happy Joe’s Pizza has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. Dynamic Restaurant Acquisition, Inc., doing business as Happy Joe’s Pizza, of 5239 Grand Ave., Davenport, filed the petition on September 2. Thomas A. Sacco, president and CEO of the company, signed the petition. The […]]]>

Happy Joe’s Pizza has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

Dynamic Restaurant Acquisition, Inc., doing business as Happy Joe’s Pizza, of 5239 Grand Ave., Davenport, filed the petition on September 2.

Thomas A. Sacco, president and CEO of the company, signed the petition. The company is represented by Mark Menuti of Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP of Wilmington, Del.

The pending bankruptcies to which Sacco’s signature is attached relate to HJ Dynamics Holdings, LLC, TS Dynamic Acquisition, Inc. and TS Dynamic Holdings, LLC.

Happy Joe’s Pizza files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy


Thomas Geyer



According to the company’s income statement attached to the bankruptcy petition, Happy Joe’s recorded a loss of net income of $1,196,579.18 for fiscal year 2022. In fiscal year 2021, the company realized a net profit of $766,523.50.

People also read…

The company reports total assets of $1,908,481.29 for fiscal year 2022.

The total liability for fiscal 2022 was $2,455,766.29.

This is a developing story.

]]>
In Depth: US Bankruptcy Code Safe Harbors Protect Against Foreign Law Evasion Claims Under Chapter 15 | Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP https://geneticscienceservices.com/in-depth-us-bankruptcy-code-safe-harbors-protect-against-foreign-law-evasion-claims-under-chapter-15-cadwalader-wickersham-taft-llp/ Tue, 13 Sep 2022 21:08:12 +0000 https://geneticscienceservices.com/in-depth-us-bankruptcy-code-safe-harbors-protect-against-foreign-law-evasion-claims-under-chapter-15-cadwalader-wickersham-taft-llp/ The United States Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor provisions reassure financial institutions that transfers made under protected financial contracts generally will not be subject to cancellation or “recovery” if the transferor files subsequently file for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. But is it the same when the […]]]>

The United States Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor provisions reassure financial institutions that transfers made under protected financial contracts generally will not be subject to cancellation or “recovery” if the transferor files subsequently file for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. But is it the same when the assignor is a foreign debtor whose main insolvency proceeding takes place outside the United States and whose representatives merely seek “recognition” of the foreign proceeding in the United States in under Chapter 15 of the Code? The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York recently confirmed that safe harbors also provide protection in these circumstances, even with respect to foreign law claims based on foreign transactions. See Fairfield Sentry Ltd. vs. Citibank, NA London2022 WL 3644436 (SDNY 24 Aug 2022).

Background

Fairfield involved three investment funds organized in the British Virgin Islands (“BVI”) that invested in Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme. After Madoff’s scheme collapsed, the funds went through insolvency proceedings in a BVI court, which appointed liquidators to recover and fairly distribute the assets on behalf of the funds’ members. The liquidators, acting as “foreign representatives” of the funds, obtained recognition of the BVI insolvency proceeding in SDNY Bankruptcy Court under Chapter 15. The liquidators also initiated proceedings in the United States under BVI insolvency law, seeking to avoid certain allegedly preferential actions or fraudulent payments constructively made to investors who had cashed out their investments in the funds before the collapse of the Madoff scheme. The bankruptcy court ultimately dismissed such claims under BVI law as barred by Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, which generally precludes avoidance of a “settlement payment… made by or to ( or for the benefit of) a… financial institution… in connection with a securities contract.

The call

On appeal, the district court upheld the bankruptcy court’s ruling that claims to avoid BVI law were barred by the 546(e) safe harbor.

In doing so, the district court rejected the liquidators’ argument that Section 546(e) applied only to transactions within the United States and not “extraterritorially” to foreign transactions. The Court recognized a general presumption against the extraterritorial application of a law, but held that 546(e) applied notwithstanding this presumption as part of a two-step analysis developed by the United States Supreme Court which examines (i) whether the law gives a clear indication that it applies extraterritorially, and (ii) whether the case involves domestic application of the law, as determined by examining the “focus” of the law .

With respect to the first step, the Court found that Congress had expressed a clear intention to apply 546(e) extraterritorially through Section 561(d) of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides that ‘Under Chapter 15, safe harbors “limit evasive powers to the same extent as in a proceeding under Chapters 7 or 11.” 11 USC § 561(d). The Court held that, because the Section 561(d) requires safe harbors to apply under Chapter 15 “to the same extent” as under Chapter 7 or 11, and because under Chapter 7 or 11 safe harbors safe harbor would prohibit any preference and constructive fraudulent conveyance claims about protected parties and contracts, the 546(e) safe harbor must also prohibit all similar claims in a Chapter 15 matter, even if they relate to non-U.S. transactions and under foreign law.

With respect to the second step, the Court found that the application of the 546(e) safe harbor was domestic rather than extraterritorial, as the purpose of the safe harbor was ultimately to limit the powers avoidance of foreign representatives in US court.

Importantly, the Court also recognized that under Chapter 15, as in Chapters 7 and 11, the Section 546(e) safe harbor does not bar claims based on intentional fraud. , as opposed to constructive fraud. However, the Court concluded that the Fairfield the liquidators had not asserted any claim for intentional fraud, as their claims under BVI law only related to unfair preferences and fraudulent transfers by construction. Therefore, the exception for intentional fraud did not apply in this case.

Take away food

The Fairfield The ruling provides financial institutions with added assurance that under Chapter 15, just like Chapters 7 and 11, the safe harbor provisions of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code should render transactions under financial contracts protected under the free from “recovery” based on preference or implied fraudulent transfer claims. However, just as under Chapters 7 and 11, this Chapter 15 immunity does not extend to claims based on intentional fraud.

]]>
Eagle Senior Living emerges from bankruptcy https://geneticscienceservices.com/eagle-senior-living-emerges-from-bankruptcy/ Mon, 12 Sep 2022 04:32:47 +0000 https://geneticscienceservices.com/eagle-senior-living-emerges-from-bankruptcy/ Nine months after Eagle Senior Living voluntarily commenced Chapter 11 proceedings in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, the company announced Thursday that it has completed a comprehensive financial restructuring. The Wilmington, DE-based company operates independent living, assisted living and memory care communities in seven states: Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Minnesota, Ohio, Tennessee […]]]>

Nine months after Eagle Senior Living voluntarily commenced Chapter 11 proceedings in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, the company announced Thursday that it has completed a comprehensive financial restructuring.

The Wilmington, DE-based company operates independent living, assisted living and memory care communities in seven states: Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Minnesota, Ohio, Tennessee and Wisconsin.

“Through this process, we have achieved a strengthened financial structure, enabling our communities to be the place where residents can do more of what they love for years to come,” Todd Topliff, President of American Eagle Delaware Holding Co., said in a press release.

The sale of Vista Lake Assisted Living and Memory Care Community in Leesburg, Florida to Atlantis Senior Living marks the close of the Chapter 11 case.

In February, Atlantis was among the bidders for Vista Lake, according to court records. In addition to Atlantis, Eagle received qualified bids for the seniors community from Illuminate HC and Gold Standard of Care prior to the bidding deadline.

Illuminate originally won the bid to purchase the property for $7.1 million. By July 1, however, the company had defaulted on the terms of the sale, according to American Eagle Delaware Holding Co. The court agreed and allowed Eagle to follow second-highest bidder Atlantis at a purchase price of $4 million.

The pre-arranged bankruptcy filing was intended to allow Eagle to operate uninterrupted and “achieve a more balanced and sustainable capital structure, creating a stronger foundation for the long-term success of their communities,” according to one. Press release issued last month by American Eagle Delaware Holding Co.

Eagle Senior Living’s parent company, American Eagle Lifecare Corp., and management company, Greenbrier Senior Living, were not included in the Chapter 11 filing. Greenbrier continues to manage all of Eagle’s remaining communities.

“I would like to thank our residents and family members for their continued support, our business partners for their patience, and all of our loyal employees for their hard work and dedication to providing all residents with the highest quality care as we did it. worked to complete this process,” Topliff said. “We are optimistic about our future.”

]]>
Endo seeks to block government opioid lawsuits during bankruptcy https://geneticscienceservices.com/endo-seeks-to-block-government-opioid-lawsuits-during-bankruptcy/ Fri, 09 Sep 2022 23:17:00 +0000 https://geneticscienceservices.com/endo-seeks-to-block-government-opioid-lawsuits-during-bankruptcy/ A sign is seen outside the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan, New York. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid Join now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com Register Bankrupt businesses are normally protected from lawsuits State and local governments have argued that bankruptcy protections do not apply to their enforcement actions […]]]>

A sign is seen outside the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan, New York. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

Join now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

  • Bankrupt businesses are normally protected from lawsuits
  • State and local governments have argued that bankruptcy protections do not apply to their enforcement actions
  • Endo faces 3,100 lawsuits related to the sale and marketing of prescription opioids

(Reuters) – Endo International plc sued hundreds of state and local governments on Friday, seeking a ruling that their lawsuits accusing the company of helping to fuel the opioid epidemic in the United States should be stayed for a while. the bankruptcy of the pharmaceutical company.

In a filing in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan, Endo said if those lawsuits were allowed to proceed, the company would not be able to focus on successfully restructuring, including a full resolution of the claims. of opioids.

Endo filed for Chapter 11 protection on Aug. 17, seeking to address its high debt load and resolve more than 3,100 lawsuits accusing the company of deceptively marketing prescription opioids like Opana by downplaying the risk of addiction.

Join now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Prior to filing for bankruptcy, Endo reached a $450 million settlement with more than 30 states to resolve the lawsuits, but it still faces the risk of litigation from state and local governments that have not agreed to participate in the settlement. Other state and local governments, including Florida and West Virginia, had already settled their opioid claims against Endo.

A Chapter 11 filing typically automatically protects bankrupt businesses from litigation by staying new and pending lawsuits, but some state and local governments have argued that the bankruptcy court’s “automatic stay” does not apply. government enforcement action, Endo said in his complaint.

At least 36 states, as well as attorneys representing local governments in nationwide multi-district opioid lawsuits, have agreed to voluntarily stay lawsuits during Endo’s bankruptcy, without admitting that the “automatic stay applies to them, Endo said.

But others, like Oregon, have let the company know they intend to sue Endo, and many local governments have not made their position clear, according to the complaint.

A representative for the Oregon attorney general did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Before filing for bankruptcy, Endo often found himself litigating dozens of opioid lawsuits at once, and that effort “affected nearly every aspect” of his business, the company said. Endo spent $136 million on opioid litigation in 2021 and $32.7 million in the first quarter of 2022, according to its complaint.

The case is Endo International v. Commonwealth of Kentucky et al, US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 22-07039.

For Endo: Abigail Davis, Paul Leake and Jason Liberi of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom

Read more

Endo files for bankruptcy as US opioid litigation drags on

Mallinckrodt wins approval for restructuring plan and opioid deal

Purdue Pharma judge overturns DOJ decision to approve $6 billion opioid settlement

Join now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Our standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

]]>
Cineworld, the world’s second largest movie theater chain, files for bankruptcy https://geneticscienceservices.com/cineworld-the-worlds-second-largest-movie-theater-chain-files-for-bankruptcy/ Wed, 07 Sep 2022 17:24:00 +0000 https://geneticscienceservices.com/cineworld-the-worlds-second-largest-movie-theater-chain-files-for-bankruptcy/ The British company, which has more than 500 cinemas across the United States, said that he started chapter 11 proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas to get rid of the company’s debt. He also expects the stock to “strengthen its balance sheet and provide the financial strength and […]]]>
The British company, which has more than 500 cinemas across the United States, said that he started chapter 11 proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas to get rid of the company’s debt. He also expects the stock to “strengthen its balance sheet and provide the financial strength and flexibility to accelerate and capitalize on Cineworld’s strategy in the motion picture industry.”

The company added that it has access to nearly $2 billion in financing from existing lenders to continue operating. Cineworld also said in the filing that it “plans to operate its global business and theaters as usual throughout this process.”

The company warned late last month that a voluntary Chapter 11 filing was one of the options it was considering to reduce its debt.

“We have an incredible team across Cineworld laser who are focused on evolving our business to thrive as the movie industry returns,” Cineworld CEO Mooky Greidinger said in a statement on Wednesday. “The pandemic has been an incredibly difficult time for our business, with the forced closure of cinemas and a huge disruption to movie times that has gotten us to this point.”

Greidinger added that the bankruptcy filing is “part of our ongoing efforts to strengthen our financial position and is aimed at deleveraging that will create a more resilient capital structure and an efficient business.”

“This will allow us to continue executing our strategy to reinvent the most immersive cinematic experiences for our guests through the latest and most advanced screen formats and enhancements to our flagship cinemas,” he said. added. “Our goal remains to further accelerate our strategy so that we can strengthen our position as the ‘best place to watch a movie’.”

Like many cinemas, Cineworld has struggled during the pandemic, which has devastated the industry and is still impacting exhibition. The global health crisis has caused the closure of cinemas around the world and the company lost $2.7 billion in 2020 and another $566 million in 2021.

The economy has improved for cinemas, but a return to normal is still a long way off.

The domestic box office rebounded this summer thanks to big hits like “Top Gun: Maverick” and “Jurassic Park: Dominion” as well as smaller hits like “Elvis” and “The Black Phone.” Still, movie attendance has dried up in recent weeks amid a dearth of new films and supply chain issues hitting Hollywood and many features going straight to streaming.

— Mark Thompson and Anna Cooban contributed reporting.

]]>
Surety bonds are not enforceable contracts https://geneticscienceservices.com/surety-bonds-are-not-enforceable-contracts/ Mon, 05 Sep 2022 15:43:25 +0000 https://geneticscienceservices.com/surety-bonds-are-not-enforceable-contracts/ As we have previously reported over the years, a key provision of the Bankruptcy Code is Section 365, a lengthy provision that deals with the disposition of enforceable contracts between debtor and non-debtors in bankruptcy proceedings. . Over many decades, Section 365 has been amended myriad times to deal with special contracts ranging from real […]]]>

As we have previously reported over the years, a key provision of the Bankruptcy Code is Section 365, a lengthy provision that deals with the disposition of enforceable contracts between debtor and non-debtors in bankruptcy proceedings. . Over many decades, Section 365 has been amended myriad times to deal with special contracts ranging from real estate leases to equipment leases to aircraft leases. But the preliminary question that must be answered by the court remains: is the agreement in question an enforceable contract capable of being presumed or rejected in the event of bankruptcy? At a time when the unprecedented real estate boom may finally be coming to an end given rising interest rates and a possible recession, the processing of performance bonds and related agreements may become an area of ​​concern. ‘interest. Surprisingly, until now, no federal circuit court of appeals had determined whether a bond agreement was an enforceable contract. In an opinion issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dated August 11, in a case titled In the Falcon V case, Case No. 21-30668, the court held that a surety bond is not an enforceable contract and that the debtor’s obligations under the surety bonds could not be performed.

The surety program and bankruptcy procedures

According to the notice, the debtor and its affiliates were engaged in oil and gas exploration and development. As part of a “bond program”, an insurer had issued four irrevocable bonds guaranteeing the performance of the debtor vis-à-vis third parties relating mainly to the sealing, abandonment and restoration of oil and gas wells. If the debtor fails to fulfill its obligations, the insurer would be required either to pay the third party an amount equal to the obligation, or to perform the obligations itself up to the amount of the bond. The total bond amount was $10,575,000. The debtor was required to pay premiums to the insurer and to indemnify the insurer for any payments the insurer had to make under the bonds. The bonds also provided that the insurer’s obligations to third parties would continue whether or not the debtor paid the premiums due to the insurer.

]]>
Different judicial approaches to objections to a bankruptcy petition https://geneticscienceservices.com/different-judicial-approaches-to-objections-to-a-bankruptcy-petition/ Sat, 03 Sep 2022 15:46:31 +0000 https://geneticscienceservices.com/different-judicial-approaches-to-objections-to-a-bankruptcy-petition/ JTo protect the legitimate rights and interests of debtors and creditors in bankruptcy proceedings, if they disagree with a bankruptcy petition listed on the creditors’ rights checklist, the Bankruptcy Act d The company grants the right to raise an objection and take legal action regarding any dispute regarding the confirmation of bankruptcy claims. To increase […]]]>

JTo protect the legitimate rights and interests of debtors and creditors in bankruptcy proceedings, if they disagree with a bankruptcy petition listed on the creditors’ rights checklist, the Bankruptcy Act d The company grants the right to raise an objection and take legal action regarding any dispute regarding the confirmation of bankruptcy claims. To increase the efficiency of bankruptcy trials, Article 8 of the Provisions (III) on Several Matters Concerning the Application of the Corporate Bankruptcy Law states that when the bankruptcy administrator has finished explaining or to adjust the claims based on the grounds and legal basis invoked by the opponent, or decides not to explain or adjust, the opponent may initiate legal action or arbitration within 15 days of the examination claims of creditors at the meeting of creditors. In practice, courts have different understandings and practices regarding the trial of an opponent. This article summarizes the content and judicial opinions of court documents across China in hopes of shedding light on the inconsistency.

DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS

Wang Zhenxiang
Partner
Jingtian and Gongcheng

When the clock starts ticking. In most cases, the 15-day period runs from the end of the examination of the opposing claims by the competent meeting of creditors. However, in some regions, the starting point is considered the day the objector receives the writing issued by the administrator, based on the aforementioned provisions stipulating that the administrator may offer explanations or adjustments. This opinion was confirmed by the Higher People’s Court of Hebei Province in Detaiquan Special Steel vs. Mingjun Xintai Tourism Development (2021). The Shanghai Higher People’s Court and the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court both require administrators to provide a written response to objectors and allow them a reasonable period of time of at least 15 days from receipt of the written response, giving them gives ample opportunity to take legal action.

Roles in opposition trials. According to the Beijing High People’s Court, the debtor’s objection statement must be made by the debtor’s registered legal representative. If the right of the controlled creditor is secured, the guarantor must be notified of the inspection in writing and has the right to bring legal action to confirm the bankruptcy claims with the bankruptcy court if he believes that the adjustments are illegal. The Jiangxi Higher People’s Court made similar demands. The Sichuan Higher People’s Court further requires that where the debtor finds it difficult to file a lawsuit on his own behalf, a legal representative, shareholder/sponsor, director or supervisor may do so on his behalf, with any advantage of winning the lawsuit going to the debtor. The Shandong Higher People’s Court provides that: when the debtor opposes bankruptcy claims on the creditors’ rights checklist, the opposing creditor will be listed as a defendant; where a creditor opposes the claims of other creditors on the checklist, the opposing creditor is the defendant; when the creditor opposes his own claim, the debtor is the defendant; and where multiple parties oppose the same application, all opponents are listed as co-applicants. The Sichuan court also provides that where a creditor opposes the claims of other creditors, the debtor can be registered as a third party.

Nature of the 15-day period. As for the 15-day time limit for filing a lawsuit, court documents have yet to clearly define its legal nature, and court documents in various regions indicate an inconsistency in its interpretation. In Chen Hao vs. Wuhan Oriental Yixin Construction et al (2019)the civil judgment regards the 15-day period neither as a limitation of action nor as a lapse period, but as a guiding requirement with harmful consequences similar to the claim period, and a lawsuit can be brought after its expiration.

In China Chemistry Engineering No. 4 Construction v Shandong Jinshunda Group et al (2019), the court ruled that the 15-day period was peremptory and rejected the opponent’s request. In the 2021 Ping An Bank Taiyuan Branch Bankruptcy Application Confirmation Case, the court ruled that since the opponent did not file a lawsuit within 15 days, he was deemed to have consented to the results of the inspection during the meeting of creditors, therefore re-confirmation of the decisions of first and second instance of revocation.

Can the 15 day period be adjusted? In Weng Xiaoxiong v Xieli Hexing Real Estate Development (Pingtan) et al (2021), the court held that the 15-day period, the legal period given to opponents to bring a legal action, is not subject to termination, interruption or extension for any reason whatsoever. However, according to the Chongqing No. 5 Intermediate People’s Court, opponents can apply to the court for an extension of the 15-day period due to force majeure or for other reasonable reasons (for example, the administrator fails to publish a review result within the prescribed period) in accordance with Article 83 of the Civil Procedure Law.

Consequences of a late trial. According to the judgment procedures of the superior courts of Shandong, Jiangxi and Beijing, the opponent must file a lawsuit challenging the bankruptcy claims within 15 days, otherwise the claims are upheld. Judgment procedures of the higher courts of Chongqing, Sichuan, Yunnan and Shanghai, as well as the intermediate court of Shenzhen, indicate that if no legal action is taken, it will be considered that all parties consent or do not have no objections to the bankruptcy filings.

ANALYSIS OF LEGAL EFFECTS

Based on various court regulations and practices, the author believes that the 15-day period is more like a statute of limitations for action. Defining it as a legal time limit in the sense of procedural law comes close to its legislative purpose, while Article 83 of the Code of Civil Procedure can also be applied to prevent any loss of the opponent’s rights for legitimate reasons.

Since corporate bankruptcy law allows creditors to make additional filings if the time limit is exceeded, considering the 15-day time limit as peremptory would seem to contradict such regulation. Furthermore, since it usually takes a long time for confirmed bankruptcy applications to be granted, simply treating the 15-day period as a guiding settlement with a slap on the wrist may not be enough to achieve the goal. to urge opponents to speed up any trial. and improving the efficiency of bankruptcy proceedings.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In the absence of consensus in both legal regulations and judicial practice, the author advises debtors and administrators to respect the practice of the courts of Chongqing and Shanghai, and to fully inform the creditor of the starting point of the 15 days, the consequences of an objection, whether it can be extended and, if so, for what legitimate reasons, as well as other information relevant in the context of the official confirmation of the application for bankruptcy. The author advises creditors to place greater emphasis on timelines provided by statutes and legal interpretations, improve the effectiveness of communication with administrators, and bring legal action within prescribed timelines.

Wang Zhenxiang is a partner at Jingtian & Gongcheng

交通

Room 3001, Area A, China Resources Tower
No.1366 Qianjiang Road, Hangzhou 311500, China

Tel: +86 571 8992 6523

Fax: +86 571 8992 6501

Email: wang.zhenxiang@jingtian.com

www.jingtian.com

]]>
Bed bath and beyond bankruptcy https://geneticscienceservices.com/bed-bath-and-beyond-bankruptcy/ Thu, 01 Sep 2022 20:11:03 +0000 https://geneticscienceservices.com/bed-bath-and-beyond-bankruptcy/ Bed Bath & Beyond is fighting to keep another B word out of its name: bankruptcy. On August 31, the company announced some changes to boost profitability as the brand strives to improve its balance sheet. The home goods supplier revealed that it plans to cut its workforce by 20%, close nearly 150 stores and […]]]>

Bed Bath & Beyond is fighting to keep another B word out of its name: bankruptcy. On August 31, the company announced some changes to boost profitability as the brand strives to improve its balance sheet.

The home goods supplier revealed that it plans to cut its workforce by 20%, close nearly 150 stores and close some of its house brands.

The home goods company hopes to revive its dwindling fortunes by cutting general and administrative costs.

In bed with bankruptcy

Sue Gove, Director and Acting Chief Executive Officer, said: “We embrace a simple, back-to-basics philosophy that focuses on better service to our customers, business growth and profitability. In a short time, we have made significant changes and instituted enablers across our business to regain our dominance as the preferred shopping destination for our customers’ favorite brands and exciting products. We have a special presence in the home and baby markets, and we intend to seize our opportunity to be the retailer of choice in the category. »

The company plans to turn around the situation by reducing its selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses to $250 million in fiscal 2022. The announcement was met with skepticism by Wall Street and its shares plunged by almost 21%. In early August, shares of Bed Bath & Beyond had fallen to $4.89 per share before rising to $30 in mid-August. Investor Ryan Cohen sold his stake in the home goods company, triggering a wave of panic on risk-averse Wall Street. But the stock rebounded after rumors the company would receive another round of funding.

The company also revealed that it would cut capital expenditures in order to avoid bankruptcy. Previously, it was estimated at around $400 million, but has now been reduced by $150 million to provide sufficient strategic investments and digital capabilities.

The sale of Ryan Cohen triggered the worst one-day decline in Bed Bath & Beyond stock history. Some retailers admitted that the move caught them off guard.

The New Jersey-based company managed to secure $500 million in funding to help it weather the storm. Meanwhile, analysts remain cautious about his attempts to overturn a sinking ship. One even compared it to the reorganization of the lounge chairs on the Titanic. The company will continue to evaluate its portfolio and leases as part of its “strategy for the future”.

Reports have also surfaced claiming suppliers have halted shipments to Bed Bath & Beyond citing unpaid invoices. The company bled its customers as people found cheaper alternatives online and its shares became a “meme stock” due to its volatility. A lot of interest has been generated in the meme stock due to the involvement of Ryan Cohen, who is mostly popular for rallying around GameStop in 2020.

In July, an analyst sounded the alarm over deteriorating conditions at the business and mentioned that some Bed Bath & Beyond stores had cut air conditioning and other in-store utilities to keep costs down. The company, however, vehemently denied the charges.

In the written statement, Gove continued: “We are working quickly and diligently to strengthen our liquidity and secure our path for the future. We took a deep dive into our business and today we are announcing immediate actions to increase customer engagement, drive traffic and regain market share. This includes modifying our merchandising and inventory strategy, which will be anchored in national brands. Additionally, we are focused on driving digital and foot traffic, as well as optimizing our store base. We believe these changes will have a broad-based positive impact on customer experience, inventory mix, supply chain execution and cost structure. The customer drives our decisions and we are committed to providing them with what they want while driving growth, profitability and financial returns. »

]]>