Videology, Inc., along with four of its affiliates and subsidiaries, has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 18-11120). Videology, based in Baltimore, MA, is a software solutions provider in the TV and digital advertising industry.

BioAmber Inc. (OTCMKTS: BIOA), a chemicals manufacturer based in Saint Paul, Minnesota, has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 18-11078).

Gibson Brands Inc., along with eleven subsidiaries and affiliates, has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 18-11025).

Nighthawk Energy plc, along with its wholly owned subsidiary Nighthawk Royalties LLC, has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 18-10990). Nighthawk, an independent oil & gas company operating in the DJ Basin in Colorado, has not yet filed First Day Motions.

Bertucci’s Holdings, Inc., along with nine subsidiaries and affiliates, has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 18-10894). Bertucci’s, headquartered in Worcester, MA, is a brick oven Italian eatery with fifty-nine (59) locations through the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic.

VER Technologies HoldCo LLC, along with eight subsidiaries and affiliates, has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 18-10834).

EV Energy Partners, L.P., along with thirteen (13) affiliates and subsidiaries, has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 18-10814). EV, based in Houston, Texas, is an upstream oil & gas developer operating throughout the United States.

Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code shields certain transfers involving settlement payments and other payments in connection with securities contracts (for example, payment for stock) made to certain financial intermediaries, such as banks, from avoidance as a fraudulent conveyance or preferential transfer. In recent years, several circuit courts interpreted 546(e) as applying to a transfer that flows through a financial intermediary, even if the ultimate recipient of the transfer would not qualify for the protection of 546(e).

On October 20, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision which, among other things,[1] affirmed the lower courts’ holding that certain noteholders were not entitled to payment of a make-whole premium. The Second Circuit held that the make-whole premium only was due in the case of an optional redemption, and not in the case of an acceleration brought about by a bankruptcy filing.

On October 20, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an important decision regarding the manner in which interest must be calculated to satisfy the cramdown requirements in a chapter 11 case.[1] The Second Circuit sided with Momentive’s senior noteholders and found that “take back” paper issued pursuant to a chapter 11 plan should bear a market rate of interest when the market rate can be ascerta