Key points
Information obtained by compulsion can be shared between officeholders of connected estates (parent/subsidiary)
There must, however, be a possibility that there will be a surplus in the subsidiary estate
The prospect must be real as opposed to fanciful
The facts
You have been reading for months that the U.S. Supreme Court approved amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”) that go into effect on December 1, 2017. You also may have ignored these changes because they affect Chapter 13 consumer cases and may not impact your commercial bankruptcy practice.
Right?
Key points
Court reiterated circumstances in which it will sanction a proposed course of action by administrators
Requirement that the course of action be “particularly momentous”
Court sanctioned proposed settlement in the circumstances
The Facts
In a move that surprised bankruptcy practitioners and other observers, a Delaware bankruptcy court recently rescinded an order approving a $275 million break-up fee relating to a failed merger.
Key Points
Key Points
- Floating charge is valid even where there are no unencumbered assets at the time it is taken
- Crystallisation of prior ranking floating charge does not impact enforceability of second ranking floating charge
The Facts
Key points
Key Points
- Directors cannot file a notice of intention to appoint (NoI) without a ‘settled intention’ to appoint an administrator
- NoIs cannot be used where there is no qualifying floating charge holder (QFCH)
- The judgment has implications for validity of appointments where requirements not met
The Facts
Earlier this month, the United States Supreme Court agreed to review a Seventh Circuit decision regarding the scope of the so-called “safe harbor” from avoidable transfers provided in Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code. Many in the U.S. bankruptcy industry expect that the Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., Case No. 16-784, in order to resolve a long-running split among the 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 8th, and 10th Circuits, on the one hand, and the 7th and 11th Circuits on the other.
Key Points
- Claims against Kaupthing could not be pursued in the English courts
- No implied restriction on jurisdictional effect under the Winding-up Directive
- Position analogous to Judgments Regulation and Insolvency Regulation
The Facts