This question was considered in the recent case of Pindar where the judge concluded that an administration had been validly extended where the consent of one of the secured creditors (who had been paid) was not obtained.
Sales pursuant to Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code have become commonplace in bankruptcy cases as a mechanism to liquidate a debtor's assets and maximize value for creditors. Selling the debtor's assets to a third party provides a new go-forward business partner for the debtor's vendors and customers, and likely provides continuity of jobs for the debtor's former employees. Due to the benefits associated with a sale of the debtor's assets, creditors or parties-in-interest may be under the misconception that they need not pay attention to the sale process.
When a liquidating debtor seeks to assume a lease, one of the lessor’s immediate questions is who will be the assignee. But what happens when a liquidating debtor seeks to assume a lease and waits up to two years thereafter to determine who the assignee will be? Although peculiar, the analysis of whether to grant the assumption rests on evaluating the three basic requirements under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.
Pursuant to Section 341 of Title 11 of the U.S. Code (the Bankruptcy Code), the U.S. Trustee is required to convene and preside over a meeting of the creditors of a debtor (the 341 Meeting). The purpose of the 341 Meeting is to examine the debtor's financial position and to confirm facts stated by the debtor in the bankruptcy filing. While creditors are not required to attend the 341 Meeting, creditors have an opportunity to examine the debtor and ask questions related to the debtor's financials and the bankruptcy case.
Last month the Delaware Chancery Court sent a clear message to Delaware companies that failure to strictly comply with the Delaware Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors (“ABC”) statute will result in severe consequences, including dismissal.
The UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA has issued a consultation about proposed changes to its Guidance for Insolvency Practitioners. The aim is to clarify existing guidance and provide more information to insolvency practitioners (IPs) on how to deal with regulated firms.
In my most recent blog post, I provided some tips for creditors who find themselves in the Subchapter V arena. This is somewhat of a follow-up to that one.
A disclosure statement and a plan are critical documents in Chapter 11 cases, representing the culmination of a case and a roadmap of the debtor's path forward. A Chapter 11 plan can be either a plan of reorganization, pursuant to which a debtor emerges from bankruptcy as a new, reorganized entity, or a plan of liquidation, pursuant to which a debtor's remaining assets are liquidated and the proceeds are distributed to creditors. Plans of liquidation are common in Chapter 11 cases, where the debtor sells substantially all of its assets.
As discussed in our prior blog entitled “New York’s Sovereign Debt Restructuring Proposals,”[1] three bills were introduced in the New York state legislature to overhaul the way sovereign debt restructurings are handled in New York. Those bills sought to implement a comprehensive mechanism for restructuring sovereign debt, limit recovery on certain sovereign debt claims, and amend the champerty defense.
As seen in the recent proliferation of bankruptcy cases seeking a structured dismissal or conversion after a successful sale, debtors constantly seek creative and efficient ways to wind up a case, including through a traditional plan of liquidation. Yet, as discussed below, debtors must ensure that any proposed voting procedures for a plan comply with section 1126 of the Bankruptcy Code, or are at least supported by, or supportable with, prior precedent.