A case against a hedge fund, and one of its partners and in-house counsel, related to actions at a portfolio company and alleging breach of fiduciary duties survived a motion to dismiss.  The portfolio company, alleged to be insolvent, was a credit derivative product company that had a subsidiary that wrote credit default swaps.

On August 26, 2014, Judge Robert D. Drain of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a bench ruling in In re MPM Silicones, LLC, Case No. 14-22503 (RDD), on several aspects of the plan of reorganization filed by debtor Momentive Performance Materials, Inc., a specialty chemicals manufacturing company, and its affiliated debtors.

On August 15, 2014, the Eleventh Circuit entered a Memorandum Opinion in the Wortley v. Chrispus Venture Capital, LLC case (In re Global Energies, LLC, “Global”)¹ unwinding a section 363 sale order entered in 2010 by the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida based on a finding of bad faith in the filing of an involuntary bankruptcy case in 2010.

On September 3, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit entered an opinion vacating various orders of the United States Bankruptcy Court and District Court for the Southern District of Texas (the “Bankruptcy Court” and the “District Court”) in the bankruptcy cases of TMT Procurement Corporation and its affiliated debtors (the “Debtors”), including a final order approving the Debtors’ post-petition debtor in possession financing (the “DIP Order”) with Macqua

Energy industry bankruptcies of all types are expected to increase, offering an opportunity for companies to acquire assets for their operating portfolios while taking advantage of the bankruptcy process. We have received numerous inquiries about how the bankruptcy process can be used to acquire assets. This Insight provides answers to frequently asked questions about what is known as the 363 or "stalking horse" bankruptcy auction process.

WHAT IS THE OPPORTUNITY?

This article was first published in the summer 2014 issue of NABTalk, the publication of the National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees.

The Eighth Circuit held that preferential payments are subject to a new value defense of § 547(c)(4) where the new value was provided by a third party that benefitted from the preferential transfers.

In Van Sickle, the plaintiffs each owned a royalty interest in a well that was originally leased by Comanche Oil Company, which later assigned its interests to Athens/Alpha Gas Corporation. Alpha later filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code, and the plan was approved without inclusion of the Van Sickles' claims. The Van Sickles sought to hold both companies liable under the doctrine of successor liability for pre-bankruptcy-court-confirmation royalties under the N.D.C.C. § 47-16-39.1, which provides in part:

On January 17, 2014 the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued a ruling in Fisker Automotive Holdings, Inc., et. al., Case No. 13-13087 (KG), which highlights potential risks to both secured creditors and purchasers of claims in bankruptcy section 363 sales. The facts in Fisker are straightforward. Fisker was founded in 2007 to make high-end electric cars and was financed principally with federal and state government loans secured by some, but not all, of Fisker’s assets.

In In re KB Toys,¹ a recent decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court held that a claim that is disallowable under § 502(d)² if held by the original claimant is also disallowable in the hands of a purchaser or subsequent transferee. In other words, if a creditor sells or assigns its claim to a claims trader and the creditor later becomes liable on a preference or fraudulent transfer,³ the claim may be disallowed in the hands of the claims trader if the creditor fails to pay the amount it owes to the estate.