The American Bankruptcy Institute (“ABI”) Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 issued today a 400-page report (the “Report”) recommending changes to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (“Code”). The Report is the result of a two-year effort by 150 practitioner-ABI members.[1] Without considering the likelihood of Congressional passage in the near term, we will evaluate each significant proposed change separately in subsequent Alerts over the next several weeks.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, on Oct. 16, 2014, held that a “good faith transferee” in a fraudulent transfer suit “is entitled” to keep what it received “only to the extent” it gave “value.” Williams v. FDIC (In re Positive Health Management), 2014 WL 5293705, at *8 (5th Cir. Oct. 16, 2014). Reversing in part the district and bankruptcy courts, the Fifth Circuit narrowed their holding that the debtor had “received reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the debtor’s cash transfers.” Id. at *1-2.
- Debt capitalisation in court-approved refinancing agreements
The 4th additional provision (4th a.p.) of the Spanish Insolvency Act (IA) provides that certain effects under a court-sanctioned refinancing agreement may extend to financial creditors that either have not signed the agreement or have expressed disagreement with it (dissenting creditors).
- RDA (RDL, its Spanish acronym) 11/2014, of 5 September, on urgent measures in insolvency matters, amends, inter alia, the rules on majorities required for the acceptance of settlement proposals.
The new rules can be found in art. 124(1) of the Spanish Insolvency Act (Ley Concursal), which now reads as follows:
- El RDL 11/2014, de 5 de septiembre, de medidas urgentes en materia concursal, ha venido a modificar, entre otros extremos, el régimen de las mayorías necesarias para la aceptación de propuestas de convenio.
El corazón de la nueva disciplina está constituido por el nuevo apartado 1 del art. 124 LC, que ha quedado redactado como sigue:
On Aug. 26, 2014, Judge Robert Drain of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York denied the payment of a $200 million make-whole premium. See Corrected and Modified Bench Ruling on Confirmation of Debtors’ Joint Chapter Plan of Reorganization for Momentive Performance Materials Inc. and its Affiliated Debtors, In re MPM Silicones, LLC, No. 14-22503 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2014) [D.I.
According to its Explanatory Notes, RD Act (Order in Council) 4/2014, of 7 March, adopting urgent measures on business debt refinancing and restructuring, aims to facilitate the financial repair and recovery of companies facing an economic crisis. To this end, a set of rules varying in scope and significance have been laid down, which I here discuss with regards to the treatment reserved to loans granted under refinancing agreements - as provided by the Spanish Insolvency Act (IA) - and their signatory creditors.
EL RDL 4/2014, de 7 de marzo, por el que se adoptan medidas urgentes en materia de refinanciación y reestructuración de deuda empresarial, tiene como objetivo declarado (vid. su Exposición de Motivos) facilitar el saneamiento financiero de las empresas en situación de crisis económica. A estos efectos se han dictado un conjunto de normas de diferente alcance y significado.
We recently wrote about the highly controversial decision of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in In re Fisker Automotive capping a secured creditor’s right to credit bid its $168 million claim at $25 million.[1] The secured creditor immediately appealed to the District Court.[2] As a procedural matter, the secured creditor had an absolute right to have its appeal heard only if the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling was considered a “final order.” If it was not a “final order,” then the District Court had discretion on whether to hear the merits of the appeal. On Feb.
On Jan. 10, 2014, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Court”) in In re Fisker Automotive Holdings, Inc., et al., capped a secured creditor’s right to credit bid its $168 million claim at only $25 million (the amount it paid to purchase the claim). The decision is on appeal. While the Court stated that its decision is non-precedential, it serves as a cautionary tale for secured lenders who also are potential acquirers of a debtor’s assets in bankruptcy sales.
Facts
Loan to Fisker