The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently limited the ability of a secured creditor to credit bid for substantially all of the debtors’ assets because (i) the credit bid would chill, or even freeze, the bidding process, (ii) the proposed expedited private sale pursuant to a credit bid would be inconsistent with notions of fairness in the bankruptcy process, and (iii) the amount of the secured claim was uncertain. In re Fisker Automotive Holdings, Inc., Case No. 13-13087 (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 17, 2014).

Section 1111(b) of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”) is one of its least understood provisions, primarily due to its somewhat opaque language. This Code subsection is divided into two distinct but related parts. The first part, section 1111(b)(1), provides that a nonrecourse secured claim in a Chapter 11 case will be treated “as if such holder had recourse against the debtor on account of such claim, whether or not such holder has such recourse” subject to two exceptions.

124 members of the Element Six pension scheme are suing the trustees of the scheme in the Commercial Court for alleged breach of duty arising out of the decision to close the scheme with a significant deficit.  The members claim that the trustees breached their duty to the members by failing to demand that the employer fully fund the deficit in the scheme before wind up.  A number of general issues relating to the obligations of trustees were raised during the 3-week hearing of the case.

Background

Reliance Insurance Company was placed in liquidation on Oct. 3, 2001 by Order of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. The Reliance liquidation was, and still is, one of the largest insurance company liquidations in U.S. history. Reliance has been in the process of marshaling assets and paying its liabilities for the past 12 years through a court-appointed Liquidator, namely the Insurance Commissioner of Pennsylvania.

Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that Illinois mortgages entered prior to the amendment of 765 ILCS 5/11 need not strictly conform to the form presented in the statute. In re Crane, --- F.3d ---, 2013 WL 6731850 (7th Cir. Dec. 23, 2013). However, the court’s decision in Crane, considered as a whole, serves as a reminder to secured lenders to closely examine the contents of their mortgages and the requirements of applicable state law.

“You cannot properly appraise the real seriousness of that situation unless you are right there in the city. Everything that frugal men and women put aside for years to save for old age, to get security for themselves –– every¬thing that they put aside to make the lot of their children a better one than their own, is now likely to be swept away. There is only one way that you can lighten the load of the municipality and that is to take its debt service off for the time being. Specifically, so that you will understand it, what is it in the city of Detroit?

Borrowers are increasingly seeking to challenge or frustrate the validity of an appointment of a receiver on technical grounds. While each case will be determined on its own merits and facts, a recent decision of the High Court is illustrative of the Court’s attitude towards some such arguments.

The Supreme Court of the United States denied a petition for writ of certiorari of the debtor, Castleton Plaza, LP, in Castleton Plaza, LP v. EL-SNPR Notes Holdings, LLC, Case No. 12-1422, meaning the prior opinion from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in In the Matter of Castleton Plaza, LP, 707 F.3d 821 (7th Cir. 2013), remains intact, protecting creditors who are faced with being shortchanged by a reorganization plan proposed by a debtor that attempts to transfer the future ownership of the debtor to an insider without first putting the ownership stake up for auction.

The Government, has announced that it is examining potential changes to the law to clarify the position of residential tenants where a receiver is appointed to rented accommodation. Concern has been expressed that there is a lack of clarity as to whether a receiver appointed to such a property assumes any of the responsibilities of the landlord or whether he should be solely concerned with recovering value from the asset, as would be conventional.

In In re Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd [2013] IEHC 219, the High Court held that it has jurisdiction to wind-up a company registered in the British Virgin Islands, but with its principal place of business in Ireland.