Filing an involuntary bankruptcy petition is an alternative not often considered by creditors. However, faced with the possibility of having to write-off a claim, a creditor may choose to file an involuntary bankruptcy petition in order to put the debtor under the control of the Bankruptcy Code and the bankruptcy court. Such a move comes with risk, and a recent Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision may expand that risk.
Events are happening quickly these days with Caesars Entertainment. On January 13, holders of second lien notes issued by Caesars Entertainment Operating Company (“CEOC”) filed an involuntary chapter 11 petition against CEOC in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. Two days later, CEOC itself filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois, setting up a venue fight over the bankruptcy case. And later that same day, the U.S.
Introduction
Put your lender’s hat on. Wouldn’t it be great if you could prevent your borrower from filing bankruptcy in the first place? Unfortunately for lenders, a recent decision demonstrates how hard it is to prevent bankruptcy filings.
On December 1, 2014, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act of 2014(FIBA). The legislation passed on a voice vote and is supported by the major Wall Street banks.
All bankruptcy practitioners know that a debtor may choose which contracts to assume and which contracts to reject. But may a debtor reject contracts that are part of an overall, integrated transaction? In a recent bankruptcy decision, the court found the answer to be no, at least if the parties are careful in drafting their contracts.
Key Points:
A Senate Committee has said amendments to Australia's corporate insolvency laws should be considered to encourage and facilitate corporate turnarounds.
The Senate Economics References Committee called for a review of Australia's corporate insolvency laws to ensure they facilitate corporate turnarounds. One suggestion was for the implementation of certain features of the US' Chapter 11 regime into Australia's insolvency laws.
The arguments for changing the insolvency regime
Key Points:
The NSW Supreme Court says it can provide directions on an administrator's commercial decision on the basis of the liability assumed by administrators and their partners.
Key Points:
For a company to be entitled to subrogation under section 560, it must ensure that it meets the strict requirements of section 560 and does not pay entitlements directly to the relevant company's employees.
Six month extensions to convening periods should not be seen as a fait accompli, particularly if the administrator's application is opposed.
There is a commonly held belief that courts will readily grant an administrator's application for an extension to the convening period. This might have been true once, but it is fast turning into an urban myth, judging by two recent decisions in the Federal Court.