Background

Whether a claim against company management is direct or derivative is not infrequently disputed in litigation before the Delaware Court of Chancery. This determination becomes important in many contexts, including whether it was necessary for plaintiff to make a pre-suit demand upon the board, whether derivative claims of a company have been assigned to a receiver, or whether such claims have previously been settled in a prior litigation.

Not uncommonly, a preference complaint fails to adequately allege that the transfers sought to be recovered by the trustee were made “for or on account of an antecedent debt owed by the debtor before such transfer was made”, as required under Section 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. Thus, when faced with a complaint to recover alleged preferential transfers, a defendant can proceed in one of two ways: (i) file an answer and raise affirmative defenses, or (ii) move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

1 NEWSFLASH 4 April 2017 Introduction By way of background, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) was enacted with the primary objective to consolidate and amend the laws relating to reorganisation and insolvency resolution of corporates, firms and individuals in a time bound manner to maximise the value of their assets. The genesis of the Code is rooted in the long-term vision of providing an effective legal framework for timely resolution of insolvency and bankruptcy, which would support development of credit markets and encourage entrepreneurship.

In a recent order admitting a petition for insolvency resolution filed by Essar Projects India Limited (Operational Creditor) against MCL Global Steel Private Limited (Corporate Debtor), the National Company Law Tribunal (Mumbai Bench) (NCLT) has clarified what constitutes a ‘disputed debt’ within the meaning of Sections 8 and 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) and Rule 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016.

Facts of the case

In the recent decision of In re Molycorp, Inc., 562 B.R. 67 (Bankr. D. Del. 2017), Judge Sontchi held that a carve-out provision in a DIP financing order did not act as an absolute limit on the fees and expenses payable to counsel to the creditors committee in a case with a confirmed chapter 11 plan.

In a 33 page decision released March 29, 2017, Judge Sontchi of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court ruled on competing motions to dismiss the remaining claims and counterclaims in an adversary proceeding in the Affirmative Insurance bankruptcy – Adversary Proceeding Case No. 16-50425.

Background

The Board constituted under the chairmanship of Mr MS Sahoo has recently rejected an application for registration as an insolvency professional (IP) under regulation 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016 (IP Regulations) through its first regulatory order.

Factual Matrix

Serving as an illustration of the principal that a financial restructuring won’t save a business that has ceased to be frequented by customers, RadioShack has filed for bankruptcy for the second time in as many years. The prior case was filed in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware as case no. 15-10197. This case is also in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, and is case no. 17-10506.

On March 2, 2017, Cal Dive Offshore Contractors, Inc. (“Cal Dive” or “Debtor”) filed approximately 136 complaints seeking the avoidance and recovery of allegedly preferential and/or fraudulent transfers under Sections 547, 548 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code.