Readers familiar with contract law undoubtedly know the “mailbox rule,” that an offer is accepted the moment a document goes in the mail.1 The United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit (the “BAP”) recently dealt with its own variant of the mailbox rule: does the issuance of a check constitute a transfer of estate assets on the date the check is delivered or on the date it is honored?
The Bankruptcy Code’s cramdown provisions are a powerful tool for debtors in the plan confirmation process. Pursuant to section 1129(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Code, a plan may be confirmed if, among other things, “at least one class of claims that is impaired under the plan has accepted the plan.” Once there is an impaired accepting class, and assuming certain requirements are met, the plan may then be “crammed down” on all other classes of impaired creditors that reject the plan and those creditors will be bound by the terms of a plan they rejected.
If you were to walk down Fifth Avenue and see a store displaying a white apple suspended in a large glass case, more likely than not you would immediately think of the California-based tech giant who shares its name with the nutritious snack. Similarly, if the person walking in front of you on your way to the Apple store lifted her heel to reveal a candy-apple red shoe sole, more likely than not the name Christian Louboutin would pop into your head.
Foreign judgments may be enforced in Australia under the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 or, if that Act does not apply, pursuant to common law principles.
Registration and enforcement pursuant to the Foreign Judgments Act 1991
Weil Summer Associate David Rybak contributed to this post
2018 has been described as “the year of the CVA”, especially in the retail and casual dining sectors. Although company voluntary arrangements can be a useful tool to compromise portfolios of leasehold obligations, there are certain situations where a CVA may be unsuitable.
1. When a full operational and/or financial restructuring is required
In a recent decision, the Fifth Circuit narrowly held that federal law does not prevent a bona fide shareholder from exercising its voting right in the company’s charter to prevent the filing by the company of a bankruptcy petition merely because it is also an unsecured creditor. In re Franchise Servs. of N. Am., Inc., 891 F.3d 198, 203 (5th Cir. 2018).
In Momentive Performance Materials, the Second Circuit declined to dismiss as equitably moot the appeals of certain noteholders.
1. It is hard to get rid of this preconceived idea that unlike other systems, the French insolvency system (excessively) favours debtors at the expense of their creditors.
Some recent decisions make it possible to question this idea.
These decisions deal with the conditions required for the approval of a safeguard plan and are warnings to debtors that might be tempted to force their plan through.
Safeguard proceedings end with the court-approval of a restructuring plan when there are serious chances of rescuing the business (French Commercial Code, Art. L.626-1).
Last week, in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc.1 the Supreme Court settled a split in the circuit courts, unanimously holding that the safe harbor provision created by 11 U.S.C. § 546(e), 11 U.S.C.