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.

“[C]ourts may account for hypothetical preference actions within a hypothetical [C]hapter 7 liquidation” to hold a defendant bank (“Bank”) liable for a payment it received within 90 days of a debtor’s bankruptcy, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 7, 2017.In re Tenderloin Health, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4008, *4 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017).

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.

A Chapter 11 debtor “cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure,” held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 4, 2016. In re New Investments Inc., 2016 WL 6543520, *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) (2-1).

While a recent federal bankruptcy court ruling provides some clarity as to how midstream gathering agreements may be treated in Chapter 11 cases involving oil and gas exploration and production companies (“E&Ps”), there are still many questions that remain. This Alert analyzes and answers 10 important questions raised by the In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation decision of March 8, 2016.[1]

An asset purchaser’s payments into segregated accounts for the benefit of general unsecured creditors and professionals employed by the debtor (i.e., the seller) and its creditors’ committee, made in connection with the purchase of all of the debtor’s assets, are not property of the debtor’s estate or available for distribution to creditors according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — even when some of the segregated accounts were listed as consideration in the governing asset purchase agreement. ICL Holding Company, Inc., et al. v.

Bankruptcy courts may hear state law disputes “when the parties knowingly and voluntarily consent,” held the U.S. Supreme Court on May 26, 2015. Wellness Int’l Network Ltd. v. Sharif, 2015 WL 2456619, at *3 (May 26, 2015). That consent, moreover, need not be express, reasoned the Court. Id. at *9 (“Nothing in the Constitution requires that consent to adjudication by a bankruptcy court be express.”). Reversing the U.S.