In Nortel Networks, Inc., Case No. 09-0138(KG), Doc. No. 18001 (March 8, 2017), the Delaware Bankruptcy Court ruled on the objections of two noteholders who asked the Court to disallow more than $4.4 million of the $8.1 million of the fees sought by counsel to their indenture trustee. Given the detailed rulings announced by the Court, the decision may establish a number of guidelines by which future fee requests made by an indenture trustee’s professionals will be measured.

Matters Handled by the UCC

One of the most powerful and oft used devices in bankruptcy is the sale of assets “free and clear” of liens, claims and interests. One issue a buyer at a bankruptcy sale must consider, however, is whether due process has been met with respect to parties whose liens, claims and/or interests are released through such sale. Indeed, a lack of due process could foil a “free and clear” sale, leaving a buyer with an encumbered purchase and nowhere to turn for recourse.

There are numerous reasons why a company might use more than one entity for its operations or organization: to silo liabilities, for tax advantages, to accommodate a lender, or for general organizational purposes. Simply forming a separate entity, however, is not enough. Corporate formalities must be followed or a court could effectively collapse the separate entities into one. A recent opinion by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts, Lassman v.

The linked Mintz Levin client advisory discusses a recent Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that held a “make-whole” optional redemption premium to be due upon a refinancing of corporate debt following its automatic acceleration upon bankruptcy.

In a recent decision (“Energy Future Holdings”) poised to have wide-reaching implications, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decisions of the Bankruptcy and the District Courts to hold that a debtor cannot use a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing to escape liability for a “make-whole” premium if express contractual language requires such payment when the borrower makes an optional redemption prior to a date certain.

Imagine you are the CEO of company sitting across from an interviewer. The interviewer asks you the age old question, “So tell me about your company’s strengths and weaknesses?” You start thinking about your competitive advantages that distinguish you from competitors. You decide to talk about how you know your customers better than the competition, including who they are, what they need, and how your products and services fit their needs and desires. The interviewer, being somewhat cynical, asks “Aren’t you worried about the liabilities involved with collecting all that data?”

A recent opinion issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois reminds us that corporate veil-piercing liability is not exclusive to shareholders. Anyone who is in control of and misuses the corporate structure can be found liable for the obligations of the corporation. The facts of this case, however, did not support personal liability for veil-piecing.

Les délais sont d’une importance primordiale dans le cadre de procédures judiciaires. Le défaut de les respecter peut impliquer le rejet d’une action.

Dans l’affaire 9190-0753 Québec Inc. (Syndic de), 2016 QCCS 1983 (29-04-2016), le juge Stephen W. Hamilton a décidé de l’application de certains délais du Code de procédure civile (ou C.p.c.) en complément de la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité (ci-après « Loi ») et des Règles générales sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité (ci-après « Règles »).

Les faits

Les délais sont d’une importance primordiale dans le cadre de procédures juridiciaires. Le défaut de les respecter peut impliquer le rejet d’une action.

Dans l’affaire 9190-0753 Québec Inc. (Syndic de), 2016 QCCS 1983 (29-04-2016) le juge Stephen W. Hamilton décide de l’application de certains délais du Code de procédure civile (ou C.p.c.) en complément des Règles générales sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité (ci-après « Règles »).

Les faits

Most or all creditors who lend to farmers will be familiar with the Farm Debt Mediation Act, S.C. 1997, c. 21 (the “FDMA”) and the need to serve a notice under the FDMA before taking action against a farmer. However, there are some details of how the FDMA operates that may not be as well-known. This piece will highlight some of those details.