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.

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.

Key Points:

Courts will remove liquidators where there's apparent bias even where it might cause significant inconvenience and expense to the liquidation.

The Full Court of the Federal Court has found that a conflict of interest arose in circumstances where liquidators were required to investigate transactions with an entity that also refers work to the liquidators (ASIC v Franklin; Re Walton Construction Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 85).

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

A New York bankruptcy court, on Dec. 12, 2013, issued a 166-page decision after a 34-day trial, concluding that the spin-off of a highly profitable energy business constituted a fraudulent transfer intended to shield the business from massive environmental liabilities, and awarding damages of up to approximately $14.5 billion.^[1]Tronox Inc. et al. v. Kerr McGee et al. (In re Tronox et al.) (Bankruptcy S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2013) (J.

Key Points:

For a company to be entitled to subrogation under section 560, it must ensure that it meets the strict requirements of section 560 and does not pay entitlements directly to the relevant company's employees.

On Sept. 12, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision to deny payment of a make-whole premium (the “Make-Whole Amount”) to bondholders under three separate indentures (the “Indentures”) based on the plain language of those agreements. U.S. Bank Trust Nat’l Ass’n v. AMR Corp. et al. (In re AMR Corp.), __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 4840474 (2d Cir. Sept. 12, 2013) (“In re AMR Corp. II”).

Six month extensions to convening periods should not be seen as a fait accompli, particularly if the administrator's application is opposed.

There is a commonly held belief that courts will readily grant an administrator's application for an extension to the convening period. This might have been true once, but it is fast turning into an urban myth, judging by two recent decisions in the Federal Court.