* This article was first published by INSOL International on April 17, 2015.

The bankruptcy case of Energy Future Holdings (EFH) and its affiliates has already provided the Delaware bankruptcy court occasion to tackle a number of important bankruptcy questions, including the propriety of using tender offers to settle noteholder claims during the pendency of the case.

A recent Delaware District Court decision concerning an appeal of a bankruptcy settlement clearly provides support for the use of tender offers or other exchange, or settlement mechanics permitted under applicable federal securities laws prior to and outside a plan of reorganization. In essence, this decision permits debtors to utilize exchange offers to repurchase outstanding securities at a discount, or obtain more favorable terms during a bankruptcy proceeding and prior to confirmation of a plan of reorganization.

Case Summary

In the context of a tenant’s bankruptcy, Justice Romaine of the Alberta Queens Bench recently characterized a deposit provided under a lease as a security interest, as opposed to pre-paid rent, forcing an unsecured landlord to remit the money to a trustee in bankruptcy.

The Second Circuit in Krys v. Farnum Place (In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd.)¹ denied a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc by Appellee Farnum Place, LLC (Farnum), a hedge fund that sought to protect its purchase of a $230 million claim against the bankruptcy estate of Bernard L.

* This article was first published by INSOL International on March 16, 2015.

Upholds Extraterritorial Application of 11 U.S.C. § 362 Automatic Stay

The Supreme Court of the United States declined[1] to review the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Jaffé v.

Un avis de cotisation de l’Agence du revenu du Canada (l’ARC) constitue une mesure de recouvrement prouvable au sens de l’article 69.3 de la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité (LFI). Lorsque l’ARC est un créancier non garanti, la réclamation est sujette à la suspension des procédures de l’article 69.3 LFI, et pour lever cette suspension, l’ARC doit se présenter devant le tribunal, tel que prévu par l’article 69.4 LFI.

Antérieurement à sa faillite, la débitrice agissait à titre d’entreprise fournissant des services de « warehousing, receiving and shipping (pick and pack) ».

Après la faillite de l’entreprise survenue le 9 janvier 2014, l’un de ses anciens clients a réclamé du syndic la remise de ses inventaires.

Un torréfacteur manufacturier de café veut pétitionner en faillite son distributeur dans la région de l’Estrie. Cette procédure de faillite est assortie d’une demande pour ordonnance de sauvegarde afin que le tribunal prononce l’annulation de clauses de non-concurrence et de non-sollicitation.