Alerts and Updates

The Third Circuit’s ruling in In re Tribune provides important insight on what it means for a plan to unfairly discriminate.

In an important decision issued at the end of August, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in In re Tribune Co., Case No. 18-2909 (3d Cir. Aug. 26, 2020), held that subordination agreements need not be strictly enforced when confirming a chapter 11 plan pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code’s cramdown provision in section 1129(b)(1). In its decision, the Third Circuit also encouraged bankruptcy courts to apply “a more flexible unfair-discrimination standard” and set forth eight guiding principles to aid in that effort.

I. Introduction

Complex restructurings are no stranger to colorful facts and unpredictable twists and turns. But few lead to criminal charges. Fewer still involve criminal charges against the chairman of the unsecured creditors’ committee, alleging that he abused his position to benefit himself financially.

On September 2, 2020, the Fifth Circuit declined to void a fee award of nearly $2.3 million in favor of an employer that had prevailed on its trade secret theft claim against its former employee, because the employee willfully failed to comply with the bankruptcy court’s “extremely explicit” order regarding his objections to the award.

Background

The Ninth Circuit, in Blixseth v. Credit Suisse, 961 F.3d 1074, 1078 (9th Cir. 2020), issued a significant decision on the issue of whether nonconsensual third-party releases are ever permitted in Chapter 11 plans. Distinguishing its prior decisions on the topic, the Ninth Circuit permitted a nonconsensual third-party release that was limited to the exculpation of participants in the reorganization from claims based on actions taken during the case.

Statutory Background

Last February, we blogged about the Third Circuit’s decision in In re Energy Future Holdings Corp, No. 19-1430, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 4947 (Feb. 18, 2020). The Third Circuit approved a process for resolving asbestos claims in which a bar date was imposed on filing the claims, but late claimants who were unaware of their asbestos claims would be allowed to have the bar date excused through Bankruptcy Rule 3003(c)(3). (A bar date is a date set by the court by which all claims against the debtor must be filed.

The New Jersey Appellate Division recently discharged a creditor’s judgment lien on the debtor’s property after the debtor declared bankruptcy and had the underlying debt discharged. SeeCooper Electric Supply Co., v. J & Jay Electric, Inc., 2020 WL 5496490 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Sept. 11, 2020). In 2008, plaintiff obtained a judgment against defendant and docketed the judgment. Although plaintiff received a writ of execution, the record was not clear on if plaintiff ever levied on defendant’s house.

Foreign Investment Reviews of Distressed Assets

Financial Restructuring & Insolvency/Finance A New Restructuring Plan

16 SEPTEMBER 2020

IN THIS ISSUE:

Introduction Process for Implementing a Plan Availability of the Plan Disenfranchisement of Creditors or Members Numerosity Cross-class Cram Down Moratorium Veto Pensions Opinion

EIGHTH CIRCUIT BANKRUPTCY MONITOR