The Bottom Line
The Bottom Line
The Third Circuit recently held, in Schepis v. Burtch (In re Pursuit Capital Management, LLC), No. 16-3953, 2017 WL 4783009 (3d Cir. Oct. 24, 2017), that under section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code, if a party does not seek a stay pending appeal of a sale order, it is highly likely that any appeal of such sale will be determined statutorily moot. That was certainly the case here.
What Happened?
Background
The Bottom Line
On October 20, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a long-awaited decision in In re MPM Silicones, LLC (“Momentive”) holding that, with one important exception, that the plan of reorganization confirmed by the bankruptcy court comports with Chapter 11. Case No. 15-1682 (2d Cir. Oct. 20, 2017).
On 20 October 2017 Registrar Derrett handed down judgment in the case of Thomas v Haederle (unreported), in which she gave reasons for dismissing a bankruptcy petition presented by the debtor (T) in the County Court at Norwich on 4 December 2014, pursuant to s 272 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA86), as it then was.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently overturned its own prior guidance to hold that an official creditors’ committee had an unconditional statutory right to intervene in an adversary proceeding. The First Circuit joined the Second and Third Circuits to recognize that the right to intervene provided by the Bankruptcy Code is not limited to the main bankruptcy case, contrary to the long-standing rule in the Fifth Circuit. However, the First Circuit also held that the scope of intervention may be qualified, with limits set by the trial court on a case-by-case basis.
The Bankruptcy Code limits in many ways the rights of nondebtors under contracts with a debtor in bankruptcy. There are, however, some crucial exceptions, which Congress deemed important for the orderly function of the securities markets. In particular, agreements governing securities repurchase (or repo) transactions involving a financial institution may be terminated and liquidated notwithstanding the bankruptcy filing of the repo seller.
The Bottom Line
This interview was conducted by Lucy Trevelyan at LexisNexis. The views expressed by the interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
Property Analysis: A recent Court of Appeal decision on the payment of service charges, while correct in principal, was wrong on the facts, according to Peter Petts, barrister at Hardwicke Chambers.
Original News
Skelton and others v DBS Homes (Kings Hill) Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 1139, All ER (D) 196 (Jul)