On December 19, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit became the first federal circuit court of appeals to hold that a bankruptcy court may confirm a plan containing nonconsensual third-party releases without exceeding the constitutional limits on its jurisdiction articulated in Stern vs.
The U.S. Bankruptcy Code allows debtors to stay in control of their businesses in chapter 11. But the Code also empowers bankruptcy judges to replace a debtor’s management in certain circumstances with an outside trustee. This will happen if either cause exists to expel management or appointing a trustee is in the best interests of creditors, any equity holders, and other interests of the estate. 11 U.S.C. § 1007. Judges don’t need to hold an evidentiary hearing to appoint a trustee, but the decision to do so must be based on clear and convincing evidence.
Section 303 of the Bankruptcy Code allows creditors to initiate an involuntary bankruptcy case against a debtor. The petition initiating the case must be filed by creditors holding claims aggregating to at least $10,000, and those claims must not be “contingent as to liability or the subject of a bona fide dispute as to liability or amount.” 11 U.S.C. § 303(b)(1). Courts have disagreed as to how this provision applies when a portion of a claim is undisputed.
We recently reported on a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in favor of a creditor that seized a debtor’s property pre-petition.
Whether because of, or in spite of, the proliferating case law it is hard to say, but the issues in, underlying and surrounding third-party releases in Chapter 11 plans just continue to arise with incessant regularity, albeit without a marked increase in clarity. We have posted about those issues here six times in little more than two years,[1] and it is fair to assume that this post will not be the last.
Ultra Petroleum entered bankruptcy in significant financial distress, but then – thanks to a spike in oil prices – the debtor’s fortunes changed almost literally overnight.
The liability of directors of major organisations receives wide coverage in the press. Examples (in the Netherlands) are Imtech, HDI, FC Twente, Vestia, and Meavita. But the subject really concerns directors of all legal entities, large and small. In this issue of Quoted, we refresh your knowledge of directors' liability and address recent developments, such as case law on `corporate directors' (legal entities which are appointed directors of other entities), the Bill for Management and Supervision of Legal Entities and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
In de pers gaat het veelal over de aansprakelijkheid van bestuurders van grotere organisaties zoals Imtech, HDI, FC Twente, Vestia en Meavita. In werkelijkheid gaat dit onderwerp bestuurders aan van alle rechtspersonen: van groot tot klein. Met deze Genoteerd frissen wij uw kennis op over de aansprakelijkheid van bestuurders. Wij staan ook stil bij belangrijke relevante recente ontwikkelingen, zoals rechtspraak over de zogeheten rechtspersoon-bestuurder, het Wetsvoorstel bestuur en toezicht rechtspersonen en de Algemene verordening gegevensverwerking.
A recent decision in Delaware discussed the Barton doctrine and the application of the automatic stay in chapter 15 cases. McKillen v. Wallace (In re Ir. Bank Resolution Corp.), No. 18-1797, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166153 (D. Del. Sept. 27, 2019).
In July 2016, Joy Denby-Peterson purchased a Chevrolet Corvette. When she defaulted on one of her car payments a few months later, the Corvette was repossessed by her lender. Denby-Peterson then filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey and demanded the lender return the Corvette. When the lender refused, she filed a motion for an order compelling turnover of the Corvette and imposing sanctions for an alleged violation of the automatic stay.