At the beginning of a new year it is customary to consider what the year ahead may bring. 2019 promises to be eventful not least with the UK's (planned) exit from the EU on 29 March 2019. Here's what to look out for in the next 12 months…
Brexit
Last week, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Court”) reversed a 2015 decision by the Delaware Bankruptcy Court (the “Bankruptcy Court”) disallowing the portion of an unsecured claim filed by appellant Wilmington Trust Company (“WTC”) for postpetition attorneys’ fees and costs incurred under an indenture in connection with the In re Tribune Media Co. chapter 11 cases.
Indenture trustees and agents participate in the administration of chapter 11 cases in a number of ways, including by protecting holders’ rights, ensuring compliance with the applicable indenture and other agreements, and fulfilling their duties and responsibilities under applicable law.
Directors should seek advice from in-house or external legal professionals whenever executing documents, even if they believe that they understand the consequences of what they are signing. They should also record their decision-making process to ensure that they comply with the Companies (Miscellaneous Reporting) Regulations 2018. Wessely v White serves as a timely warning in this regard.(1)
- Introduction
- Recent case
- Court's obiter comments
- Comment
Introduction
In a recent opinion, United States Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn of the Southern District of New York held that Bankruptcy Courts may enter final default judgments against non-US defendants who fail to respond to a properly served summons and complaint.
It is generally the case (though not always!) that courts are reluctant to enforce monetary award adjudication decisions in favour of companies in liquidation (CILs). This is because of the uncertainty surrounding the CIL’s ability to repay those sums should it later transpire it was not entitled to the award.
In so holding, the Court sanctioned the lender’s motive of purchasing claims to block the plan for the purpose of protecting its own existing claim. The Court held that the relevant bad faith inquiry under 11 USC § 1126(e) requires a motive which is ulterior to the purpose of protecting a creditor’s economic interest in a bankruptcy proceeding.
Background
The lender held a senior lien fully secured by the debtor’s real property. The debtor’s proposed “cramdown” plan sought to extend and modify the terms of the mortgage without the lender’s consent.