At a hearing in late August, Judge Robert Gerber expressed his annoyance with both sides in the ongoing battle to determine whether General Motors LLC (“New GM”), the entity formed in 2009 to acquire the assets of General Motors Corporation (“Old GM”), is shielded from lawsuits based on ignition switch defects in cars manufactured prior to New GM’s acquisition of the assets of Old GM in 2009.
Synopsis:
CMS today publishes a White Paper examining whether there is a case for a special insolvency regime in the oil and gas industry.
Energy Future Holdings (“EFH” or “Debtors”) has cleared all of the preliminary hurdles in its path as it moves towards the confirmation of its plan of reorganization (the “Plan”).
Introduction:
Wide ranging changes to insolvency law will come into force on 1 October 2015 that will have repercussions for insolvency practitioners, directors and D&O insurers alike. One of the more significant - and controversial - changes allows office holders in insolvency proceedings to assign claims deriving from those proceedings to third parties. The implications of this are potentially far reaching and are discussed below.
New powers of assignment
The amendments to the Insolvency Act 1986 will extend the protection of essential supplies on insolvency to most private utility suppliers. They will also extend protection to I.T. supplies, including data storage and processing and website hosting. Further protection is introduced where contracts are entered into from 1 October 2015, so that insolvency related terms which allow higher supply charges in the event of administration or company voluntary arrangement will be prohibited.
Why is the law changing?
Mediation has become an invaluable tool in large chapter 11 cases.
For the second time in the past few months, Judge Christopher Sontchi has dashed the hopes of certain creditors in the Energy Future Holdings (“EFH”) chapter 11 case that they would be paid a make-whole premium worth over $400 million.
The Supreme Court has not handled its recent major bankruptcy decisions well. The jurisdictional confusion engendered by its 2011 decision in Stern v.
As we reported in April, the Insolvency Service has issued a call for evidence inviting comments on the issues with, and improvements that could be made to, the collective redundancy consultation requirements for employers facing insolvency. The Government has been seeking views on how well the requirements work both before an insolvency practitioner has been appointed to the failing company and after a formal appointment has been made.
Four years ago, in Stern v. Marshall, the Supreme Court stunned many observers by re-visiting separation of powers issues regarding the jurisdiction of the United States bankruptcy courts that most legal scholars had viewed as long settled. Stern significantly reduced the authority of bankruptcy courts, and bankruptcy judges and practitioners both have since been grappling with the ramifications of that decision.