In connection with recognition, PT Bakrie’s foreign representative sought an order from the Bankruptcy Court enforcing its Indonesian PKPU Plan. The foreign representative argued that the plan provided a discharge of the debtor, and all other parties, from any liability in respect of the intercompany loans at issue. By seeking enforcement of the PKPU Plan, the foreign representative effectively sought a release of non-debtor third parties from liability to the Objecting Noteholders and others, including in respect of the approximate $161 million stipulated judgment.

In the recent opinion In re PT Bakrie Telecom TBK, 2021 WL 1439953, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York provided some further guidance on what constitutes a “collective proceeding” for purposes of achieving recognition of a foreign proceeding under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code. This post will address the collective nature of the proceeding at issue. In a future post we will address other important elements of Judge Lane’s decision.

In HighPoint Resources Corporation, Case No. 21-10565-CSS (Bankr. D. Del. 2021), the U.S. Trustee’s office filed an objection (Dkt. No. 48) to the rapid confirmation of the Debtors’ plan of reorganization, among other things, indicating its concern regarding the recent trend of expedited pre-packaged plans because of their failure to provide interested parties with adequate notice.

Expedited Pre-Packs

Early evening on February 23, 2021, Belk Inc. and its affiliates (collectively, “Belk”) filed their Chapter 11 bankruptcy petitions in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. Less than seventeen hours later, Judge Marvin Isgur confirmed Belk’s pre-packed plan of reorganization. Belk is not the first Chapter 11 bankruptcy case to accomplish plan confirmation within the first twenty-four hours after filing a petition, and it certainly won’t be the last. In 2019, Sungard Availability Services Capital, Inc.

On July 6-7, 2017, Craig Jalbert, in his capacity as Trustee for F2 Liquidating Trust, filed approximately 187 complaints seeking the avoidance and recovery of allegedly preferential and/or fraudulent transfers under Sections 547, 548 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code (depending on the nature of the claims). In certain instances, the Trustee also seeks to disallow claims of such defendants under Sections 502(d) and (j) of the Bankruptcy Code.

On June 15, 2017, Curtis R. Smith, as Liquidating Trustee of the Hastings Creditors’ Liquidating Trust, filed approximately 69 complaints seeking the avoidance and recovery of allegedly preferential and/or fraudulent transfers under Sections 547, 548 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Liquidating Trustee also seeks to disallow claims of such defendants under Sections 502(d) and (j) of the Bankruptcy Code.

On June 13, 2017, The Original Soupman, Inc. and its affiliates (collectively “Debtors” or “Original Soupman”) commenced voluntary bankruptcy proceedings under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. According to its petition, Original Soupman estimates that its assets are between $1 million and $10 million, and its liabilities are between $10 million and $50 million.

On May 17, 2017, GulfMark Offshore, Inc. (“GulfMark” or “Debtor”) filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.

Starting on April 28, 2017, Craig R. Jalbert, as Distribution Trustee of the Corinthian Distribution Trust, filed approximately 122 complaints seeking the avoidance and recovery of allegedly preferential and/or fraudulent transfers under Sections 547, 548, 549 and and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code (depending upon the nature of the underlying transactions). The Distribution Trustee also seeks to disallow claims of such defendants under Sections 502(d) and (j) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Whether a claim against company management is direct or derivative is not infrequently disputed in litigation before the Delaware Court of Chancery. This determination becomes important in many contexts, including whether it was necessary for plaintiff to make a pre-suit demand upon the board, whether derivative claims of a company have been assigned to a receiver, or whether such claims have previously been settled in a prior litigation.