The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently issued a 2–1 decision affirming the ruling of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, which reconsidered its prior approval of a $275 million termination fee in connection with a proposed merger. In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., No. 18-1109, 2018 WL 4354741, at *14 (3d Cir. Sept. 13, 2018).
A draft government ordinance amending the Romanian insolvency law was published on September 12. The bill is intended to increase recoverability of state receivables from insolvent companies and to reduce the debtor’s control over the proceedings.
One of the main changes relates to denying the existing right of the insolvent debtor to nominate an insolvency practitioner to be appointed as official receiver. Under the current procedure, it was mandatory for the insolvency court to follow debtor’s proposal, if the creditors did not make a proposal of their own.
On June 20, 2018, Judge Kevin J. Carey of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware sustained an objection to a proof of claim filed by a postpetition debt purchaser premised on anti-assignment clauses contained in transferred promissory notes. In re Woodbridge Group of Companies, LLC, et al., No. 17-12560, at *14 (jointly administered) (Bankr. D. Del. Jun. 20, 2018).
Summary
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut recently examined a question at the heart of an existing circuit split regarding the consequences of trademark license rejection in bankruptcy: can a trademark licensee retain the use of a licensed trademark post-rejection? In re SIMA International, Inc., 2018 WL 2293705 (Bankr. D. Conn. May 17, 2018).
On February 27, 2018, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split regarding the proper application of the safe harbor set forth in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, a provision that prohibits the avoidance of a transfer if the transfer was made in connection with a securities contract and made by or to (or for the benefit of) certain qualified entities, including a financial institution.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that section 1129(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Code – a provision which, in effect, prohibits confirmation of a plan unless the plan has been accepted by at least one impaired class of claims – applies on “per plan” rather than a “per debtor” basis, even when the plan at issue covers multiple debtors. In re Transwest Resort Properties, Inc., 2018 WL 615431 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2018). The Court is the first circuit court to address the issue.
On January 25, 2016, the Romanian court handling the bankruptcy proceeding of Astra SA extended the deadline to file court claims against Astra SA to 17 February 2016. The initial deadline for filing was 18 January 2016. Creditors of Astra SA may wish to avail themselves of this extended deadline to file such claims in order to recover some or part of the amounts owed to them by Astra SA in the bankruptcy/liquidation proceedings.
Pursuant to the issuing by the Romanian government of Government emergency ordinance no. 91/2013 on the Insolvency Code, Ordinance that has been declared unconstitutional by the Romanian Constitutional Court in October 2013, Romanian Parliament adopted a new Insolvency Law (“New Law”), maintaining some of the valuable provisions of the unconstitutional Ordinance.
The Romanian government has adopted, by means of Government emergency ordinance no. 91, the Insolvency Code. The Code gathers and amends all pre-insolvency and insolvency provisions in Romanian legislation relating to companies, groups of companies, credit institutions, insurance and reinsurance companies, as well as cross-border insolvency proceedings. It will enter into force on October 25, 2013 and will also apply to already ongoing insolvency proceedings.