On May 4, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion regarding a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (the “First Circuit”).1 The question on appeal was whether debtor Louis Bullard (“Bullard”) could immediately appeal the bankruptcy court’s order denying confirmation of his proposed Chapter 13 payment plan (the “Plan”).2 The Court held that denial of confirmation of a debtor’s plan is not a final, appealable order.3  

Case Background

© 2015 Hunton & Williams LLP 1 May 2015 Oak Rock Financial District Court Addresses the Applicable Legal Standard for True Participation Agreements The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently applied two tests, the True Participation Test and the Disguised Loan Test, to determine whether agreements were true participation agreements or disguised loans.1 In addition, the District Court noted that the most important question in such a determination is the risk of loss allocation in the transaction, and that if an alleged participant is not subject to the

In Quadrant Structured Products Company, Ltd. v. Vertin, the Delaware Court of Chancery made two key rulings concerning the rights of creditors to bring derivative lawsuits against corporate directors.¹  First,  the court held that there is no continuous insolvency requirement during the pendency of the lawsuit.

In two recent cases, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has indicated that Section 316(b) of Trust Indenture Act of 19391 (the “TIA”) requires unanimous consent for out-of- court restructurings that impair bondholders’ practical ability to receive payments, even if the bondholders’ technical, legal ability to receive payments remains intact.

In two recent decisions, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York adopted an interpretation of Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (the “TIA”) that may complicate future exchange offers and, in some cases, force bond restructurings that might otherwise have been completed out-of-court to be effectuated through a bankruptcy filing.1  In Marblegate Asset Management v.

In another major development in a case that continues to redefine the standard procedures in asbestos-related bankruptcy proceedings, on January 13, 2015, Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC announced that it had reached an agreement with the representative for future asbestos claimants that would settle all present and future asbestos claims for $358 million. The current net present value of the settlement is reportedly $205 million – considerably higher than the bankruptcy court’s liability estimate of $125 million, but well below the $1.3 billion plaintiffs had been seeking.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently entered an order confirming that when a fraudulent transfer defendant is able to establish a defense pursuant to 11 U.S.C.

On November 5, 2014, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Virginia issued a noteworthy opinion that runs counter to what many Virginia law practitioners assume to be the common law in Virginia – i.e., that a manager of a Virginia limited liability company owes a fiduciary duty of loyalty to the limited liability company.

In In re BGI, Inc. f/k/a/ Borders Group, Inc.,1 the Second Circuit recently held that the doctrine of equitable mootness — a doctrine that permits appellate courts to refrain from hearing bankruptcy appeals relating to plan confirmation when it would be “inequitable” to do so – applies in liquidations under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. This ruling extends the doctrine from Chapter 11 reorganizations, in which it has traditionally been applied in the Second Circuit, to liquidations.

On September 29, 2014, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware affirmed an earlier decision of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in In re Jevic Holding Corp.1 holding that a private equity sponsor was not liable for its portfolio company’s alleged violations of the WARN Act. The District Court ruling is good news for private equity funds and other investors with portfolio companies in distress.