On 13 August 2014, the Irish High Court gave a judgment which addresses significant issues in examinerships and provides some clarity regarding loan acquisitions and the timing and other considerations for creditors when issuing letters of demand.

Background

The US District Court for the Western District of Washington (the "District Court") recently affirmed a bankruptcy court decision that prohibited a transferee of a secured lender's interest in a loan from voting on a debtor's plan of reorganization on the grounds that such transferee, a distressed debt investor, was not an Eligible Assignee under the applicable loan agreement.Meridian Sunrise Village, LLC v. NB Distressed Debt Investment Fund Ltd., et al., No. 13-5503 (W.D. Wash. March 6, 2014) (In re Meridian Sunrise Village, LLC).

Background

Insolvency practitioners are routinely asked to adjudicate on claims to retention of title of goods supplied. This task often involves an analysis of whether the goods in question have become fixed to land, irreversibly mixed with other goods or whether they remain as identifiable items.

In the recent case of Re Moormac Developments Limited (in receivership)[1], the High Court gave further clarity to this area of the law.

The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently issued the first appellate decision holding that, in actions brought by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the officers and directors of failed banking institutions can assert affirmative defenses relating to the FDIC’s post-receivership conduct.

In a decision of significance to the distressed claims trading community, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in In re KB Toys Inc.[1] recently held that any risk or “cloud” of disallowance under the Bankruptcy Code resulting from a creditor’s receipt of an avoidable transfer cannot be separated from a claim, even when such claim is in the possession of a subsequent transferee.

The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware recently reversed a Court of Chancery decision declining to appoint a receiver for a dissolved Delaware corporation, Krafft-Murphy Company, Inc. (Krafft). The Chancery Court determined that a receiver was inappropriate because Krafft had no property for the receiver to distribute to potential tort victims. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that an unexhausted insurance policy is property of the dissolved company even after its three-year wind-up period under Delaware law.

On October 30, 2013, Brazilian oil company OGX Petróleo e Gas Participações SA (OGX) filed for bankruptcy protection (or “judicial reorganization”) in Rio de Janeiro after restructuring discussions between the company and its major creditors ended without agreement. With nearly $5 billion of debt, OGX is the largest and most complex bankruptcy proceeding to be conducted in Latin America and will not only test Brazil’s nascent bankruptcy law, but also presents itself as the latest potential opportunity for distressed investors focused on Latin American emerging markets.

The City of Detroit filed for protection under chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code on July 18, 2013,1 becoming the largest municipality to ever file for bankruptcy. Detroit’s bankruptcy filing presents numerous complicated issues, which will be resolved over the course of the case.

Waterside Management Company Limited v Brendan Kelly and Asta Kelly^[1]

The US District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed an order rejecting an objection to the confirmation of a Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization for Dynegy, Inc. and Dynegy Holdings, LLC (together, Dynegy) for a lack of standing.