Whether because of, or in spite of, the proliferating case law it is hard to say, but the issues in, underlying and surrounding third-party releases in Chapter 11 plans just continue to arise with incessant regularity, albeit without a marked increase in clarity. We have posted about those issues here six times in little more than two years,[1] and it is fair to assume that this post will not be the last.
In the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (“2005 Act”), Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code and Title 28 of the U.S.
A bankruptcy trustee exercising her or his avoidance powers under Chapter 5 of the Bankruptcy Code may seek to recover the avoidably transferred property (or its value) from “the initial transferee,” “the entity for whose benefit such transfer was made” and “any immediate or mediate transferee of such initial transferee.”[1] Despite the authorization to seek recovery from multiple sources, “[t]he trustee is entitled to only a sin
Our May 22 post reported on the Supreme Court’s May 20 decision in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v.
The Court of Appeal has considered whether interim dividends paid to a shareholder at a time when the company did not have sufficient distributable reserves, making the payments unlawful, could later be reclassified as salary payments.
Facts
The Court of Appeal has given guidance on when the duty of directors to have regard to the interest of creditors arises. This is an important point, as the general statutory duty of a director to promote the success of the company for the benefit of the company's members is expressly subject to the rules on creditors' interests. The court's decision also considers whether a dividend payment can be challenged as a transaction at an undervalue under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
Facts
It always amazes me when, after more than a half-century of Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) jurisprudence, an issue one thinks would arise quite commonly appears never to have been decided in a reported case. Such an issue was recently decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in an adversary proceeding in the Pettit Oil Co. Chapter 7 case.[1]
Can another vain attempt to mitigate a $1.5 billion mistake provide the occasion for a thorough review of the doctrine of earmarking? It did for Southern District Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn in the long tail on the General Motors bankruptcy case.