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.

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.

You will be pleased, I hope, to hear that in this blog I shall largely be steering the referendum itself a wide berth; this is not because the prospect of Brexit would not impact greatly on insolvency law and practice (it undoubtedly would) but because I have already blogged on that topic in March and issued press releases on it in so far as it affects business decision making under the R3 banner, but mainly

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”).

On June 7, 2016, Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court ruled on a motion to dismiss Diamondhead’s involuntary bankruptcy petition. The Creditors who filed the bankruptcy admitted to the Court that their intent in filing for bankruptcy was to remove management and to obtain a recovery for their equity investments. The “Opinion” is available here. This is the second recent opinion issued in this case.

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.

In 2015, the Court of Chancery ruled upon the then novel issue under Delaware law as to what priority level advancement claims should be afforded in a receivership action. Then Vice Chancellor Parsons held that claims for advancement are not entitled to administrative priority, and instead are considered to be pre-petition, non-priority unsecured claims. For a link to a summary of the Court of Chancery decision, click here.

This blogpost was first published as an edited article in Business Magazine’s June 2016 edition (available here).

Directors at risk in the twilight zone