When it comes to voting on a plan, Section 1126(e) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a bankruptcy court may designate (or disallow) the votes of any entity whose vote to accept or reject was not made in “good faith” (a term that is not defined in the Bankruptcy Code).
The reality of a bankruptcy proceeding is that creditors often receive less than a full distribution on their claims, forcing them to absorb such losses or look for new avenues to make themselves whole. The “bankruptcy haircut” is more often the case for general unsecured creditors and occurs less often for secured creditors (when they are not undersecured) and lessors (when they are not underwater on their lease). Sometimes creditors have the luxury of looking to guarantors to mitigate their losses when the guarantors are not insolvent or otherwise judgment proof.
The Bankruptcy Code gives a bankruptcy trustee, or the debtor in possession, the power to “avoid” certain transfers made by the debtor at various times before filing for bankruptcy relief.
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).
In order to secure a real property owner’s payment obligation, contractors, mechanics, materialmen, and other workmen are often granted a lien referred to by a variety of names including, materialmen’s liens, workmen’s liens, and mechanic’s liens. While the parlance varies by jurisdiction, they are generally referred to as mechanic’s liens in Texas—even in the context of real property.
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
On October 3, 2017, Bankruptcy Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued a decision holding that the Bankruptcy Court had constitutional authority to approve third-party releases in a final order confirming a plan of reorganization.
Undersecured creditors face unique challenges because they are neither fully secured nor fully unsecured. Beyond the obviously undesirable issue of being upside-down on their deal, undersecured creditors often are exposed to preference liability for those payments they received in the 90 days prior to the debtor filing bankruptcy. This is especially true where an aggressive trustee is looking to create value or where an opportunistic trustee sees a chance to make a quick buck.
Globalization has led to a marked increase in international components to insolvency proceedings. Cross-border issues add a new layer of complexity to what is often a situation already fraught with obstacles. Courts and practitioners alike face additional difficulties communicating with other courts, resolving issues consistently in jurisdictions with different laws and policy objectives, and enforcing rulings and implementing orders adjudicated extraterritorially.