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.
Key point
In certain circumstances the court will look to parallel statutory provisions where existing applicable statute does not accommodate the situation, as long as the latter is not offended, expanded or altered by doing so.
The facts
This application for directions was brought by the administrators of Lehman Brothers Europe Ltd (the “Company”) on:
Key Points
- Statutory powers are to be exercised in accordance with a company’s articles of association
- The Duomatic principle cannot simply be used as a bandage to cure a company’s procedural errors
The Facts
This appeal considered whether the sole director of a company, whose articles required two directors for its board meeting to be quorate, could validly appoint administrators under paragraph 22 Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
Key points
- The dismissal of the appellant’s previous application for an annulment of a bankruptcy order was a serious procedural irregularity
- A court may annul a bankruptcy order under s 282 IA 1986 if it is satisfied that the order ought not to have been made based on grounds existing at the time the order was made
- In relation to appeals made pursuant to s 375 IA 1986 to review or rescind the decision of a lower court, the court may consider fresh material.
The facts
Key points
- A practical approach was adopted by the court in respect of deadlines for submitting administration expense claims that were otherwise holding up the making of distributions to unsecured creditors.
- In the absence of a suitable statutory mechanism, the court allowed for a cut-off date by which expense claims must be submitted.
The administrators of 18 of the Nortel companies applied to court for directions on how to deal with potential claims for administration expenses.
Key Points
- S 304 of the Insolvency Act 1986 is concerned with acts or omissions by a trustee in bankruptcy that have caused loss or damage to the estate
- However, the wording of that Section does not go so far as to state that in no circumstances can a trustee owe an enforceable duty in respect of loss or damage caused to the bankrupt personally.
The Facts
Key Point
In certain circumstances, a purchaser’s deposit may constitute an equitable lien upon the liquidation of the seller.
The Facts
An application under s112 IA 1986 was made by the joint liquidators of Alpha (Student) Nottingham Ltd to determine whether the purchasers of unbuilt flats had the benefit of equitable liens, and therefore ranked as secured creditors in the liquidation.
Key point
- A recalibration of the issues to be considered when adjudicating on COMI in individual bankruptcy.
The Facts
Since 6 April 2016 debtors apply online to be made bankrupt, rather than petitioning the court. Their application is considered by an adjudicator who, if deemed appropriate, will make the bankruptcy order.