In a prior post, we discussed the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Jevic Holding Corp., where the court upheld the use of so-called “structured dismissals” in bankruptcy cases, and the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari. Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Jevic. The Court’s ultimate ruling will likely have a significant impact upon bankruptcy practice.
What does it mean to “cure” a default in the context of a plan of reorganization? This question arises by virtue of section 1123(a)(5)(G) of the Bankruptcy Code, which requires that a plan provide adequate means for the plan’s implementation, including the “curing or waiving of any default.” On November 4, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals defined what it means to “cure” by holding that a debtor can only cure a contractual default under a plan of reorganization by complying with contractual post-default interest rate provisions.
The Ontario Court of Appeal (OCA) has closed the door on the application of equitable subordination in Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings. In U.S. Steel Canada Inc.
La Cour d’appel de l’Ontario (la « CAO ») a fermé la porte à l’application du principe de la subordination reconnue en equity dans le contexte des procédures instituées en vertu de la Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies (la « LACC »). Dans l’affaire U.S. Steel Canada Inc.
When should debt be recharacterized as equity? The answer to this question will have an enormous impact upon expected recovery in bankruptcy since equity does not begin to get paid until all prior classes of claims are paid in full. In a recent unpublished opinion, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals provided some guidance on when and in what circumstances recharacterization is appropriate. The Court’s decision also serves as warning to purchasers of debt that they may not be able to hide behind the original debt transaction in a recharacterization fight.
The Jevic Holding Corp. bankruptcy case is proving to be precedent setting. In a prior post, we examined how the court had greatly increased the evidentiary burden on a party seeking to hold one company liable for the debts of another company under a “single employer” theory. That ruling was seen as a boon for private equity firms who were oftentimes the target of Chapter 11 creditor
On February 29, 2016, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released a decision in the ongoing insolvency proceeding of U. S. Steel Canada Inc. (USSC). Two principal issues were addressed by the Court. First, whether amounts advanced by United States Steel Corporation (USS) to USSC (its indirect wholly-owned subsidiary) were properly characterized as debt obligations or “equity claims” under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (CCAA).
Le 29 février 2016, la Cour supérieure de justice de l’Ontario (la « Cour ») a rendu une décision dans le cadre de la procédure d’insolvabilité en instance d’Acier U. S. Canada Inc. (« USSC »). Dans cette affaire, la Cour s’est penchée sur deux grandes questions.
When can a bank be at risk of unknowingly receiving a fraudulent transfer? How much information does a bank need to have before it is on “inquiry notice”? A recent decision from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals highlights the risks that a bank takes when it ignores red flags and fails to investigate. This decision should be required reading for all lenders since, in the matter before the Seventh Circuit, the banks’ failure to investigate their borrower’s questionable activity caused the banks to lose their security and have their secured loans reduced to unsecured claims.
Did Trump win again? Yes, but this time it was not “The Donald” but was instead the casino operator Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc.