U.S. bankruptcy law permits debtors-in-possession and trustees to sell assets free and clear of claims, liens and other interests. But a federal judge in New York ruled recently that a purchaser does not necessarily buy free and clear when a product manufactured pre-bankruptcy causes injury after a sale closes. Morgan Olson L.L.C. v. Frederico (In re Grumman Olson Indus., Inc.), No. 11 Civ. 2291, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44314 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2012) (JPO). In this situation, the purchaser can remain liable for injuries caused by the asset purchased from the debtor.
LEHMAN BANKRUPTCY
In re: Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 08-13555
On March 6, 2012, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and its affiliated debtors announced that their Modified Third Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan, which had been confirmed by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on December 6, 2011, had become effective. Distributions under the Plan will begin on April 17, 2012.
Earlier today AMR Corporation, its subsidiary American Airlines, Inc., and 18 other affiliates ("Debtors") filed petitions under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan.1 The case was assigned to Bankruptcy Judge Sean H. Lane. The Debtors have asked the Court to consolidate all 20 cases for procedural purposes under the captionIn re: AMR Corporation, Case No. 11-15463.
On August 30, 2011, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York approved the Disclosure Statement for the Revised Second Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. and its affiliated debtors (collectively, the "Debtors"). The Bankruptcy Court's approval of the Disclosure Statement will permit the Debtors to begin soliciting votes to accept the Plan and is a significant step forward in the Debtors' efforts to achieve resolution of the nation's largest-ever bankruptcy.
InJ.D. Brian Ltd (in liquidation) & Others the High Court held that, where a floating charge crystallised prior to the commencement of a winding-up, the preferential creditors still had priority pursuant to in section 285 of the Companies Act 1963 over the holder of what had become a fixed charge.
The English court of appeal has held that a company should not be held to be balance sheet insolvent on the sole basis that its liabilities (including contingent and prospective liabilities) exceed its assets.
In BNY Corporate Trustee Services v Eurosail & Ors, the Court of Appeal considered in detail, for the first time, the construction of section 123 of the UK Insolvency Act 1986, which sets out circumstances in which a company can be deemed to be unable to pay its debts.
The relevant portions of section 123 provide as follows:
In Re: Michael McLoughlin Pharmacy Ltd. The examiner sought the High Court’s approval for a scheme of arrangement which limited his liability for negligence. The secured creditor objected as a matter of principle because such limitations of liability had become commonplace in schemes. The secured creditor made it clear that there was no suggestion of any negligence by the examiner in the particular case.
The court considered:
InDellway and Ors. v National Asset Management Agency & Ors., a number of companies and Paddy McKillen appealed a decision of the High Court in relation to the purported acquisition of €2∙1 billion in loans to the appellant companies by NAMA.
The appeal was brought on five grounds:
In Re McInerney Homes Limited
In the McInerney case, the company and the examiner sought to have schemes confirmed which would result in an immediate payment to a banking syndicate of €25 million. The banking syndicate contended that the discounted current value which they expected to recover from their security outside any schemes was €50 million.
Kerr & Ors v Conduit Enterprises Ltd
In 1997 the two directors of the company and others purchased a building and leased it to the company. Ownership of the company changed hands a number of times and, in 2008, the then new owners purported to void the lease on the basis that it had never been approved by shareholder resolution. The landlords issued proceedings seeking a declaration that the lease was valid.
The court held that: