Credit bidding of debt held by a secured creditor at a sale of collateral under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code has become commonplace.1 Does a secured creditor have that same ability in a sale under a chapter 11 plan? Most thought so, but according to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, not always.

Two decisions (one only weeks ago) have held that the scope of Bankruptcy Rule 2019 encompasses “informal committees” of bondholders and that such committees must comply with the extensive disclosure requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 2019.1 In a recent decision, Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Sontchi of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court came out the other way, ruling that such a committee was not a “committee representing more than one creditor” and, consequently, is not subject to Rule 2019.2 In so doing, Judge Sontchi considered but declined to follow the two decisions addressing the same issue:

Elaborating on its Resorts decision of ten years ago concerning payments to shareholders in a public leveraged buyout,1 the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently ruled in In re Plassein Int’l, Corp.2 that the “settlement payment” exemption of section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code also insulates selling shareholders in a private LBO from fraudulent transfer liability.

Hedge funds and other investors in debt or equity securities often form unofficial “ad hoc” committees through which they actively participate in chapter 11 cases. Recent decisions affirm that such ad hoc committees must comply with the disclosure requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 2019 – including the nature and amounts of claims or interests held by members and other details. What about a “group” that says it’s a lot less than an ad hoc committee and therefore, outside the Rule?

After holding a hearing on the topic this past July, the Congressional Oversight Panel (COP) released a report earlier this week entitled, “The Use of TARP Funds in Support and Reorganization of the Domestic Automotive Industry,” examining how TARP funds have been used to support and reorganize both

Late last night, after presiding over a three-day hearing on the matter last week, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order authorizing the sale of substantially all of the assets of General Motors Corporation (“Old GM”) under Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code (“Section 363 Sale”).

This afternoon, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued an order extending the temporary stay placed by a federal appeals court in New York last week on the sale of Chrysler LLC’s assets to a new company, to be partially owned by Italian automaker Fiat S.p.A., to allow opponents to the sale sufficient time to seek Supreme Court review.

This morning, General Motors Corp. (GM) announced that it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S.

This morning, General Motors Corp. (GM) announced in a Form 8-K filing that the U.S. Treasury Department has proposed details of a reorganization plan to GM in the event that GM seeks bankruptcy protection and bankruptcy court approval for the sale of substantially all of its assets to a newly organized company (New GM) pursuant to Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code (363 Sale). Following the proposed 363 Sale, the U.S.

On August 30, 2008, the United States District Court for the District of Northern Texas issued its ruling on whether Americas Mining Corporation (“AMC”) (and its parent Grupo Mexico) had caused ASARCO LLC (“ASARCO”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Grupo Mexico, to fraudulently transfer stock of Southern Peru Copper Company (“SPCC”) from ASARCO to AMC. The Court determined that AMC was liable for (1) intentional fraudulent transfer, (2) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty under New Jersey law; and (3) civil conspiracy under Arizona law. See ASARCO LLC v.