On June 20, 2018, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued a decision sustaining the debtors’ objection to the proof of claim filed by Contrarian Funds, LLC.
When it comes to voting on a plan, Section 1126(e) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a bankruptcy court may designate (or disallow) the votes of any entity whose vote to accept or reject was not made in “good faith” (a term that is not defined in the Bankruptcy Code).
Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code shields certain transfers involving settlement payments and other payments in connection with securities contracts (for example, payment for stock) made to certain financial intermediaries, such as banks, from avoidance as a fraudulent conveyance or preferential transfer. In recent years, several circuit courts interpreted 546(e) as applying to a transfer that flows through a financial intermediary, even if the ultimate recipient of the transfer would not qualify for the protection of 546(e).
On October 20, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision which, among other things,[1] affirmed the lower courts’ holding that certain noteholders were not entitled to payment of a make-whole premium. The Second Circuit held that the make-whole premium only was due in the case of an optional redemption, and not in the case of an acceleration brought about by a bankruptcy filing.
On October 20, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an important decision regarding the manner in which interest must be calculated to satisfy the cramdown requirements in a chapter 11 case.[1] The Second Circuit sided with Momentive’s senior noteholders and found that “take back” paper issued pursuant to a chapter 11 plan should bear a market rate of interest when the market rate can be ascerta
On October 3, 2017, Bankruptcy Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued a decision holding that the Bankruptcy Court had constitutional authority to approve third-party releases in a final order confirming a plan of reorganization.
Summary
The regulations governing personal insolvency in Austria will change on 1 November 2017. Whilst generally the regulations remain somewhat the same, some key debtor-friendly amendments have been effected.
The changes primarily concern mandatory quotas as well as the duration of the proceedings.
The following is an outline of the ‘new’ Austrian insolvency proceedings for natural persons.
Phase one – payment schedule
In less than a week after its bankruptcy filing, a debtor was able to obtain confirmation of its prepackaged plan of reorganization in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. In allowing the case to be confirmed on a compressed timeframe that was unprecedented for cases filed in the Southern District of New York, the Bankruptcy Court held that the 28-day notice period for confirmation of a chapter 11 plan could run coextensively with the period under which creditor votes on the plan were solicited prior to the commencement of the bankruptcy case.
Summary
A recent ruling from the Austrian Supreme Court concerning the liability of auditors in damages for providing an unqualified opinion on an insolvent debtor.
Legal Background
Pursuant to sec. 275 para 2 of the Austrian Commercial Code auditors are liable for damages caused by negligent (or intentional) violation of their duty to perform audits impartially and diligently. The liability is capped at EUR 2 mill. for audit of smaller companies.
Facts of the Case
Background
Creditors of an insolvent entity file their claims against the entity with the insolvency administrator (Germany) or insolvency court (Austria). If a claim is accepted, it is registered in the insolvency table as an accepted claim and the creditor is listed as an insolvency creditor in the insolvency proceedings.