This month the new Insolvency Rules 2016 came into force, replacing the Insolvency Rules 1986. We cover this, and other issues affecting professionals in the insolvency and fraud investigation industry below.
Whether a claim against company management is direct or derivative is not infrequently disputed in litigation before the Delaware Court of Chancery. This determination becomes important in many contexts, including whether it was necessary for plaintiff to make a pre-suit demand upon the board, whether derivative claims of a company have been assigned to a receiver, or whether such claims have previously been settled in a prior litigation.
Not uncommonly, a preference complaint fails to adequately allege that the transfers sought to be recovered by the trustee were made “for or on account of an antecedent debt owed by the debtor before such transfer was made”, as required under Section 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. Thus, when faced with a complaint to recover alleged preferential transfers, a defendant can proceed in one of two ways: (i) file an answer and raise affirmative defenses, or (ii) move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
In the recent decision of In re Molycorp, Inc., 562 B.R. 67 (Bankr. D. Del. 2017), Judge Sontchi held that a carve-out provision in a DIP financing order did not act as an absolute limit on the fees and expenses payable to counsel to the creditors committee in a case with a confirmed chapter 11 plan.
On March 2, 2017, Cal Dive Offshore Contractors, Inc. (“Cal Dive” or “Debtor”) filed approximately 136 complaints seeking the avoidance and recovery of allegedly preferential and/or fraudulent transfers under Sections 547, 548 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Delaware Bankruptcy Court”) released an update to the Local Rules for the United States Bankruptcy Court District of Delaware (Effective February 1, 2017) (the “Local Rules”). According to Local Rule 1001-1(e), the 2017 version of the Local Rules governs all cases or proceedings filed after February 1, 2017, and also applies to proceedings pending on the effective date, except to the extent that the Court finds that it would not be feasible or would work an injustice.
In the recent decision ofSpizz v. Goldfarb Seligman & Co. (In re Ampal-American Israel Corp.), 2017 WL 75750 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan.
ATopTech, Inc. (“ATopTech” or “Debtor”), an electronic design automation software company manufacturing software solutions for engineers to assist them in the physical design of integrated circuits, filed a voluntary petition for chapter 11 bankruptcy relief on January 13, 2017 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.
In addition, ATopTech filed a motion to sell its businesses under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code and has selected a stalking horse bidder. The Debtor expects that the sale will be completed by March 31, 2017.
In the recent decision ofIn re: Abeinsa Holding Inc. et al., Del. Bankr. Ct. Dec. 14, 2016), Case No. 1:16-bk-10790, the Honorable Kevin J. Carey confirmed clean energy developer Abeinsa Holding Inc.’s Chapter 11 plan, which is part of the $16.5 billion global restructuring for Spanish parent Abengoa SA.
On December 21, 2016, Modular Space Corporation and its affiliated entities (“Modular Space” or the “Debtors”) filed for bankruptcy protection in the U.S. and Canada, to implement a plan to rework its $1 billion load of long-term debt. Modular Space will continue its operations during what the restructuring. Modular Space makes, leases and sells office trailers, mobile offices, temporary classrooms, modular office complexes and portable storage units.