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).

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

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.

The Facts

RBK Engineering Ltd served a winding up petition on Breyer Group Plc, a construction company and contractual counterparty, alleging that it owed £258,729.16 and had admitted its insolvency. Breyer Group Plc applied to strike out the winding up petition on the basis that it was an abuse of process. It argued that it was solvent and had substantial counterclaims of its own.

The Decision

The Facts

Three former managers of a Russian company sought security for costs from its liquidator in respect of hearings to set aside a recognition order obtained by the liquidator pursuant to the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (the CBIR) and for documents pursuant to Section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

The Decision

The Facts

The liquidator of a company refused to requisition a meeting of creditors on the basis that it was being called by the potential defendants to actions arising out of his investigations with the purpose of removing him and stymying any claims. The liquidator applied to Court for a direction not to summon the meeting.

The Decision

The Facts

The applicants, who had successfully appealed the rejection of their proof of debt by the liquidator of Burnden Group Limited, sought an order that the liquidator pay their costs of the appeal personally in circumstances where the relevant company had no assets and their costs exceeded £290,000 (including VAT).

The Decision

The Facts

On 12 September 2012, the joint liquidators of a company brought claims for wrongful trading against its former directors, arguing that they knew (or ought to have concluded) before the date it entered liquidation that the company could not avoid insolvent liquidation. At first instance, Registrar Jones held that the directors were liable for wrongful trading and should pay compensation of £35,000. The directors appealed this decision.

The Decision