The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld summary judgment dismissing all claims against an insurer based on a bankruptcy and creditors exclusion in the insured’s directors and officers (“D&O”) policy. Markel Am. Ins. Co. v. Huibert Verbeek, No. 1:15-51099 (5th Cir. Sept. 27, 2016).
On December 2, 2016, Limitless Mobile, LLC (“Limitless” or the “Debtor”) filed a chapter 11 voluntary petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The Debtor was formed in 2013 to provide broadband and wireless telecommunication services in certain rural counties in central Pennsylvania. The Debtor is part of a worldwide corporate family referred to as the Limitless Group. According to the First Day Declaration, Limitless intends to wind down its retail-side business and emerge from bankruptcy as a wholesale operator.
On November 28, 2016, Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court ruled on a motion for relief from the automatic stay (we she treated as a motion for relief from the discharge injunction) in the Altegrity bankruptcy, Case No. 15-10226. The “Opinion” is available here. The Opinion was issued following legal argument and, by agreement of the parties, based only upon undisputed facts. Opinion at *1.
In the recent decision of Pacifica L51 LLC v. New Invs., Inc. (In re New Invs., Inc.), No. 13-36194, 2016 WL 6543520 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016), the Ninth Circuit held that Section 1123(d) of the Bankruptcy Code legislatively overruled Great W. Bank & Tr. v. Entz-White Lumber & Supply, Inc. (In re Entz-White Lumber & Supply, Inc.), 850 F.2d 1338 (9th Cir.
Just about every year changes are made to the rules that govern how bankruptcy cases are managed — the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The revisions address issues identified by an Advisory Committee made up of federal judges, bankruptcy attorneys, and others.
In In re Abeinsa Holding, Inc., 2016 BL 335099 (Bankr. D. Del. Oct. 6, 2016), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware addressed what it perceived to be a flaw in the approach that many courts apply to motions for relief from the automatic stay.
The Barton doctrine (named after the U.S. Supreme Court case Barton v. Barbour, 104 US 126 (1881)), generally prohibits suits against receivers and bankruptcy trustees in forums other than the appointing courts, absent appointing court's permission. It applies to suits that involve actions done in the officers' official capacity and within their authority as officers of the court.
Some term loans allow borrowers to redeem debt. But to protect a lender’s expected yield, such loans often impose a “make-whole premium” on redemption. That is, they require compensation to the lender for the borrower’s premature termination of interest payments.
Debt indentures often contain what is known as a “make-whole” provision, which requires the borrower, upon an early repayment of the debt, to make an additional payment to the lender to compensate the lender for its anticipated, bargained-for interest rate yield over the entire debt term.
In a November 17, 2016 ruling likely to impact ongoing debt restructurings, pending bankruptcy proceedings and negotiations of new debt issuances, the Third Circuit recently overturned refusals by both the Delaware bankruptcy court and district court to enforce “make-whole” payments from Energy Futures Holding Company LLC and EFIH Finance Inc. (collectively, “EFIH”) to rule that the relevant indenture provisions supported the payments. The case was remanded to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings.