On May 5, 2016, SRC Liquidation, LLC International Holdings, LLC (“Liquidating Debtor”), filed approximately 137 complaints seeking the avoidance and recovery of allegedly preferential and fraudulent transfers under Sections 547 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Liquidating Debtor also seeks to disallow claims of such preference defendants under Sections 502(d) and (j) of the Bankruptcy Code.

On May 1, 2016, BIND Therapeutics, Inc., and affiliated companies (“Debtors” or “BIND”) voluntarily filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

The filing comes days after the Cambridge, Mass., company received a notice of default from lender Hercules Technology III LP, which demanded immediate payment of the $14.5 million the lender says it is owed under the loan. The Company is backed by Koch Industry Inc.’s David Koch.

Recently in the Abengoa SA bankruptcy proceeding (click here to review prior post), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware entered an order permitting Debtors to reject certain nonresidential real property leases (the “Rejection Order”).

In bankruptcy, cramdown is one of the biggest risks that a secured creditor faces. Through the power of cramdown, a debtor (or other plan proponent) can effectively restructure the claim of a secured creditor including to extend the maturity date, reduce the interest rate or alter the timing of repayment.

Secured creditors need to be aware of recent bankruptcy rulings that affect their rights and interests. These rulings have tested the boundaries of key concepts affecting the ability to "cramdown" and involuntarily restructure a secured creditor’s rights and the valuation of collateral. Secured creditors must therefore be mindful of these developments and risks in guiding their negotiating and litigation strategy against a cramdown threat.

In the case of Coughlin v. South Canaan Cellular Investments, LLC, C.A. No. 7202-VCL (Del. Ch. July 6, 2012), Respondents made a request for fee shifting under the bad-faith exception to the American Rule.  In reviewing this fee shifting request, the Court found that Respondents’ request itself was unfounded, and coupled with Respondents’ own conduct in the case, instead awarded Petitioner his fees in costs in the amount of $17,906.

In the case of Wagamon v. Dolan, C.A. No. 5594-VCG (Del. Ch. Apr. 20, 2012), the Court of Chancery reviewed Defendant William Krieg’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 56.  This dispute involves the winding up of a joint venture, Internet Working Technologies, Inc. (“INT”) owned by Allan Wagamon and David B.