On May 3, 2021, Judge Marvin Isgur of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas held that indenture trustees must satisfy the “substantial contribution” standard to obtain administrative expense status for their fees and expenses incurred in a chapter 11 case. In his ruling, Judge Isgur expressly rejected the indenture trustee’s argument that it could obtain administrative expense status upon a showing that its fees and expenses were an actual, necessary cost of preserving the debtor’s estate.
On May 11, 2021, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas (“Court”) issued a decision[1] dismissing the chapter 11 cases of the National Rifle Association of America and its affiliate (“NRA”) for cause pursuant to section 1112(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.
Chapter 11 plans commonly protect a debtor’s key stakeholders that participate in the chapter 11 process from claims arising in connection with the bankruptcy case. The Office of the United States Trustee (the “US Trustee”), the branch of the Department of Justice tasked with monitoring bankruptcy cases, has recently taken aim at limiting the use and scope of these “exculpation” provisions in large restructuring cases across the country.
Background and Standards
On April 19, 2021, the United States Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari from the Second Circuit’s decision in In re Tribune Company Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation (“Tribune II”),[1] leaving intact the Second Circuit’s decision upholding the safe harbor defense to avoidance actions und
“The discharge of claims in bankruptcy applies with no less force to claims that are meritorious, sympathetic, or diligently pursued. Though the result may chafe one’s innate sense of fairness, not all unfairness represents a violation of due process.”
Rechtbank Noord-Holland heeft op 19 februari 2021 de eerste twee akkoorden onder de WHOA gehomologeerd. Het betroffen akkoorden van Jurlights B.V. en Jurlights Holding B.V., een werkmaatschappij en een holding actief in de evenementen-branche.
In de uitspraak van Rechtbank Rotterdam van 3 maart 2021 is door verzoekster aan de rechtbank de vraag voorgelegd, of onderscheid in behandeling van de concurrente crediteuren (een weigeringsgrond oplevert die) aan homologatie van een akkoord in de weg zou staan.
WHOA: Alle in het 1e kwartaal van 2021 gepubliceerde rechterlijke uitspraken gebundeld Op 1 januari 2021 is de Wet Homologatie Onderhands Akkoord (“WHOA”) in werking getreden. Het eerste kwartaal na inwerkingtreding zijn 17 rechterlijke uitspraken met betrekking tot de WHOA gepubliceerd. Het insolventieteam van Ploum bestaande uit Vincent Terlouw, Suzanne van Aalst en Boaz van Honk houdt de ontwikkelingen nauwlettend in de gaten. In deze door Suzanne van Aalst opgestelde bijdrage zal de essentie van deze uitspraken worden behandeld.
On March 19, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a unanimous decision[1] affirming that the mutuality requirement of section 553(a) of the Bankruptcy Code must be strictly construed and, therefore, that triangular setoffs are not permissible in bankruptcy.