Confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan generally requires the consent of each impaired class of creditors. A debtor can “cramdown” a plan over creditor dissent, however, as long as at least one class of impaired claims accepts the plan.
Executive Summary
In any bankruptcy, there are inevitably winners and losers. The winners do not always do virtuous acts to win and the losers are not necessarily evil. Rather, dividing up a limited pie, the bankruptcy courts must leave some creditors short-changed. A good example is the recent 7th Circuit case involving a supplier and a lender. (hhgregg, Inc. et al. (Debtor). Whirlpool Corporation v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, and GACP Finance Co., LLC, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 18-3363, February 11, 2020) |
The consequences of an order or judgement being final or interlocutory are enormous. An order from an interlocutory order requires leave since these orders are not appealable as of right. In addition, a failure to obtain leave may result in the issue becoming moot. This is especially so when motions to lift the stay are involved: if the motion is denied and is not immediately appealable, by the time the case is concluded, the issues will most likely be moot.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently held in In re Tribune Company Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation, No. 13-3992-cv (L) (2d Cir., Dec. 19, 2019) that Bankruptcy Code Section 546(e) barred claims seeking to avoid payments made by Tribune to its shareholders as part of a leveraged buyout (LBO).
Yes, says the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit recently held that the Bankruptcy Court has the authority to confirm a chapter 11 plan which contains nonconsensual, third-party releases when such releases are integral to the successful reorganization. The court’s decision in In re Millennium holds that, when the third-party releases are integral to the restructuring of the debtor-creditor relationship, the Bankruptcy Court has the constitutional authority to approve nonconsensual, third-party releases.
Background
In the fifth opinion involving the repo liquidation saga of HomeBanc, the Third Circuit addressed several crucial issues involving the liquidation and valuation of repo collateral in bankruptcy. In re HomeBanc Mortg. Corp., 2019 WL 7161215 (3d Cir. Dec. 24, 2019).
Background
Introduction
A New Jersey District Court recently addressed several issues in connection with the appointment of a future claims representative (“FCR”). In light of the recent increase in mass-tort bankruptcy cases, exploring these issues is timely.
Background
Secured creditors filing a UCC financing statement under Article 9 must include a description of the collateral. (UCC 9-502) UCC Article 9 adopts a “notice filing” system, under which the purpose of the filing is to provide notice of a security interest in the specified collateral. UCC Article 9 does not require a precise (e.g., serial number) description. Even so, there has been much litigation over the sufficiency of the collateral descriptions in UCC financing statements.
Background
Following various disputes as to the scope of the collateral given to secured creditors, the debtors and certain of their noteholders jointly proposed a chapter 11. The plan included a rights offering that the consenting noteholders agreed to backstop. These consenting noteholders were granted the right to purchase significant equity of the reorganized debtors at a discount and receive significant premiums for their agreement to backstop the rights offering and support the plan.