Changes may be coming to the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor provisions.[1] In 2012 the American Bankruptcy Institute established a Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 (the “ABI Commission”), composed of many well-respected restructuring practitioners, including two of the original drafters of the Bankruptcy Code, whose advice holds great weight in the restructuring community.
On October 17, 2014, the Delaware Supreme Court held that under the Delaware Uniform Commercial Code, the subjective intent of a secured party is irrelevant in determining the effectiveness of a UCC-3 termination statement if the secured party authorized its filing.[1]
Background
On 7 November 2014, the Government released the draft Insolvency Law Reform Bill 2014, with key changes proposed to be put in place by 30 June 2015.
Recent case law reminds practitioners and lenders to pay careful attention when drafting prepayment premium provisions in debt instruments or risk having the premiums disallowed in a borrower’s bankruptcy case.
In In re MPM Silicones, LLC, Case No. 14-22503 (RDD) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2014) (Momentive), the court dismissed a senior lien creditors’ suit alleging that the junior lien creditors breached an intercreditor agreement (ICA) with respect to shared collateral by taking and supporting certain actions adverse to the senior lien creditors.
BACKGROUND
On 4 September 2014, the Government introduced the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Amendment Bill 2014 to the House of Representatives (Bill). The Bill is intended to amend the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Act 2012 (Cth) so as to limit the entitlements payable by the Government to those employees made redundant due to the liquidation or bankruptcy of their employer.
In Lewis Brothers Bakeries, Inc. and Chicago Baking Co. v. Interstate Brands Corp. (2014 WL 2535294 (8th Cir. June 6, 2014)), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting en banc, held that a perpetual, royalty-free, assignable, transferable, exclusive trademark license granted in connection with a substantially consummated asset purchase agreement was not an executory contract that could be assumed or rejected by the licensor-debtor in bankruptcy.
The recent decision of Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2014] FCA 116 involves a significant development in the taxation collection obligations of liquidators involved in winding up a company.
In this Alert, Special Counsel Justin Byrne and Solicitor Rachael Nyst discuss the implications of the case in regard to the need to retain an amount from sale proceeds of a property in order to meet capital gains tax (CGT) liabilities.
Key points
A federal district court has ruled that a distressed debt fund is not a “financial institution” for purposes of the assignment provisions of a loan agreement.
Background
A & F Enterprises, Inc. v. IHOP Franchising LLC (In re A & F Enterprises, Inc.), 2014 WL 494857 (7th Cir. 2014)