The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an opinion in Delaware Trust Company v. Morgan Stanley Capital Group, Inc., Wilmington Trust, N.A. (In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.) on June 19, 2019, in which it addressed distributions of assets pursuant to the waterfall provision of an intercreditor agreement in a chapter 11 reorganization.

A dispute over whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) can order one of Northern California’s largest natural gas and electric companies – Pacific Gas & Electric Company (“PG&E”) – to reject wholesale power purchase contracts (“PPCs”) will be decided by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California (“Bankruptcy Court”), instead of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (“District Court”).

Law360

Reprinted with permission from Law360

In a Feb. 20, 2019, opinion in In re Titus,[1] the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in an opinion authored by Judge Thomas Ambro, announced a new test for calculating damages in fraudulent transfer actions involving tenancy by the entireties transfers.

Facts

In the recent case of Re M.D.Y. Construction Limited [2018] IEHC 676, an Interim Examiner made an application pursuant to section 541 of the Companies Act 2014 (the “2014 Act”) to have proposals for a scheme of arrangement confirmed by the High Court. Interestingly, the application was made before the Interim Examiner’s appointment had been confirmed by the Court.

Section 541 of the 2014 Act provides, inter alia, that the report of an Examiner shall be set down for approval by the Court as soon as may be after receipt of the report by the Court.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company and PG&E Corporation (together “PG&E”) filed for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California on January 29, 2019.

The Bankruptcy Protector

On January 3rd, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued an opinion in U.S. v. Parish Chemical Company, in which it addressed the issue of equitable mootness in a non-bankruptcy appeal.

Facts of the Case

Bankruptcy Judges cannot impose additional local chapter 13 confirmation requirements beyond those created by Congress, according to the Southern District of Illinois (the “District Court”).

The recent Supreme Court decision in Merit Management Group LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc. eliminated any circuit split or confusion over the language of the section 546(e) safe harbor.

Since the introduction of The Companies Act 2014, directors have relied on the Summary Approval Procedure as a means of sanctioning certain activities that are otherwise prohibited.

While it has been a welcome development in simplifying financial transactions, directors need to be mindful of the appropriate steps to be taken so they are not leaving themselves open to committing an offence or being personally liable for the debts of a company.

Background

At a time when having groceries delivered to your front door is as easy as a couple of taps and swipes on your phone, it is tempting to rely exclusively on the Internet for solutions to all of our problems. However, convenience and adequacy do not always go hand-in-hand, especially when it comes to legal representation. Such is the case with UpRight Law, LLC, a “national consumer bankruptcy law firm.” UpRight relies heavily on non-lawyer “client consultants” who dispense legal advice to clients and help to farm out the cases to local attorneys.