Cases analyzing rights under indentures – and the transactions holders and issuers contemplate (or not) under indentures – continue to gain attention in the restructuring world. Some of those cases involve section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act (see our own blog’s recent posts) and payment rights under indentures. Others, such
Parties continue to skirmish over the sufficiency of the “cram-down” interest rate required to confirm a Chapter 11 plan over a secured lender’s objection. Currently bankruptcy courts will give some weight to the “prime plus” formula set forth in Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S. 465 (2004)(plurality opinion).
Recently, the Tenth Circuit considered a case involving the question of whether the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 549 U.S. 443 (2007) and in Law v. Siegel, 134 S. Ct. 1188 (2014) affected established Tenth Circuit precedent that a bankruptcy court’s authority to recharacterize debt as equity arises under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a). In its decision inRedmond v. Jenkins, et al (In re Alternate Fuels, Inc.), 789 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir.
“[T]he automatic stay is automatic as applied to a debtor because that is what the statute says.
As to non-debtors, it is relief that is available, but it is not automatic.”
– Judge Brian M. Cogan (E.D.N.Y.), August 20, 2015
On October 7, 2015, Taylor-Wharton International LLC and Taylor-Wharton Cryogenics LLC filed a Chapter 11 petition seeking protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The case is docketed as case no. 15-12075, and has been assigned to The Honorable Brendan L. Shannon.
An insolvent corporate subsidiary’s payment of its parent’s contractual obligations was not a fraudulent transfer when “the [subsidiary] Debtor received reasonably equivalent value in exchange for [its cash] transfers,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on Sept. 4, 2015. In re PSN USA, Inc., 2015 WL 5167803, at *7 (11th Cir. Sept. 4, 2015) (per curiam).
On Sept. 30, a district court resolved a significant portion of outstanding litigation in the bankruptcy proceeding of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and its subsidiaries.See Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc.), No. 1:11-cv-06760 (S.D.N.Y. Sept., 30, 2015). This litigation flows from the debtors’ allegations that JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (JPMC) coerced billions of dollars from Lehman on the eve of its bankruptcy filings in September 2008. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
Technology companies can preserve both significant sums of money and valuable intellectual property rights if they take action when a customer or business partner files for bankruptcy protection. Far less effort is usually required to preserve these rights than what may be involved in a major piece of litigation; but, in almost every case, the company must take timely steps to ensure that its interests are protected.
Congress made clear in its enactment of section 503(b)(3)(D) of the Bankruptcy Code that, to the extent a creditor makes a substantial contribution in a chapter 9 or chapter 11 bankruptcy case, that creditor should be rewarded. Because the reward — reimbursement of fees and expenses as administrative expenses of the estate —
At first glance, Stanziale v. MILK072011, looks like someone suing over a bad expiration date and conjures up images of Ron Burgundy proclaiming “milk was a bad choice.” But in actuality Stanziale is much more interesting: it answers whether one can breach their fiduciary duty by exposing an employer to a claim under the aptly-named WARN Act, which requires employers to tip off their workers to a possible job loss.