On July 1, 2016, SynCardia Systems, Inc. (“Debtor” or “SynCardia”) filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

According to the Declaration of Stephen Marotta, the Debtor’s Chief Restructuring Officer, SynCardia is a medical technology company that develops artificial heart implants. In the months leading to the Debtor’s filing, SynCardia attempted but then withdrew an IPO attempt due to adverse market conditions. Since then it has become insolvent.

On June 22, 2016, Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court ruled on a motion to for class certification in the PacSun bankruptcy, Case No. 16-10882. In 2011, two plaintiffs filed actions under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), alleging violations of California wage and hour laws. One of the Plaintiffs was granted class certification in February, 2016. After PacSun filed for bankruptcy, these plaintiffs moved for authority to file bankruptcy proofs of claim as representatives of the PAGA class for the class.

Businesses need to have written protocols in place to deal with bankruptcy filings by their employees and independent contractors, or they risk serious sanctions and, potentially, punitive damages for violations of the bankruptcy laws. Consider two examples.

On June 16, 2016, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the “Committee”) of Kid Brands Inc., et al. (the “Debtors”), filed approximately 64 complaints seeking the avoidance and recovery of allegedly preferential and fraudulent transfers under Sections 547, 548 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Committee also seeks to disallow claims of such preference defendants under Sections 502(d) and (j) of the Bankruptcy Code.

In my May 26th post, I raised several questions that unsecured creditors in any Chapter 11 case should know the answers to and take action where appropriate.

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the "Federal Reserve") recently issued a proposed rule (the "Proposed Rule") that would significantly limit derivative counterparty remedies upon the insolvency of US global systematically important banking organizations ("GSIB") and their affiliates and the US operations of foreign GSIBs (collectively, "Covered Entities").

In the recent decision of Gavin Salmonese, LLC v. Shyamsundar, et al. (In re AmCad Holdings, LLC, et al.) (Bankr. D. Del.

Yet another company in the energy sector has filed for bankruptcy protection. On June 17, 2016, Maxus Energy Corporation, and its affiliates (“Debtors”) filed for chapter 11 protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

Since April, two bankruptcy courts have refused to enforce limited liability company ("LLC") agreement provisions requiring the respective LLCs to obtain the unanimous consent of their members in order to seek bankruptcy relief.1 On June 3, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Delaware Bankruptcy Court") relied on federal public policy to invalidate an LLC agreement provision requiring unanimous member consent to file bankruptcy where the member at issue owed no fiduciary duties to the LLC and the member's primary relationship to the

Recently on June 6, 2016, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court considered a motion to dismiss the Intervention Energy Holdings, LLC, et al. bankruptcy proceeding. On May 20, 2016, Intervention Energy Holding, LLC (“IE Holdings”) and Intervention Energy, LLC (“IE”) filed a voluntary chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Voluntary Petition”).