Two decisions (one only weeks ago) have held that the scope of Bankruptcy Rule 2019 encompasses “informal committees” of bondholders and that such committees must comply with the extensive disclosure requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 2019.1 In a recent decision, Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Sontchi of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court came out the other way, ruling that such a committee was not a “committee representing more than one creditor” and, consequently, is not subject to Rule 2019.2 In so doing, Judge Sontchi considered but declined to follow the two decisions addressing the same issue:
Kemper has been on the brink of insolvency for years. It may have finally reached the end of its runway. Last week, Kemper disclosed its most recent financials, which show that very little cash is left in its two major member companies, raising the specter that it may finally be placed into a liquidation proceeding. Policyholders should be aware of the ramifications of a Kemper liquidation and take steps, if possible, to mitigate the impact a Kemper liquidation could have on their businesses.
Introduction
Section 548 of the United States Bankruptcy Code allows for the avoidance of transfers that are either intentionally or constructively fraudulent. Section 548 provides, in relevant part, as follows:
Today, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) announced the close of a Rule 144A sale of $1.8 billion principal amount of notes backed by 103 non-agency residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS) from seven failed bank receiverships.
In RGH Liquidating Trust v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, 2011 WL 2471542 (N.Y.
In a 113-page decision (click here to read decision) that is sure to be applauded by lenders and bond traders alike, Judge Alan S. Gold of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, in overturning a Bankruptcy Court opinion that has caused lenders much concern, has issued a stern ruling that provides a bulwark against efforts by creditors and trustees in bankruptcy to expand the scope of the fraudulent conveyance provisions under the Bankruptcy Code.
In Ogle v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 586 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2009), the Second Circuit has now become the second circuit court of appeals to recently conclude that general unsecured creditors may include postpetition attorneys’ fees as part of their claim when attorneys’ fees are permitted by contract or applicable state law.11
The strategic importance of classifying claims and interests under a chapter 11 plan is sometimes an invitation for creative machinations designed to muster adequate support for confirmation of the plan. Although the Bankruptcy Code unequivocally states that only “substantially similar” claims or interests can be classified together, it neither defines “substantial similarity” nor requires that all claims or interests fitting the description be classified together.
The implementation of restrictions on stock and/or claims trading has become almost routine in large chapter 11 cases involving public companies on the basis that such restrictions are vital to prevent forfeiture of favorable tax attributes that can be triggered by a change in control. Continued reliance on stock trading injunctions as a means of preserving net operating loss carry forwards, however, may be problematic, after the controversial ruling handed down in 2005 by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in In re UAL Corp.
Global—On 10 January 2014, the US Supreme Court agreed to resolve a court split over the scope of discovery orders aimed at enforcing judgments against foreign states. In Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., No. 12-842, 2014 BL 7274 (Jan. 10, 2014), the Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari to hear an appeal stemming from Argentina's default on its government debt in 2001. Argentina restructured its defaulted debt in 2005 and 2010.