On April 29, 2014, power giant Energy Future Holding Corp. (“Energy Future”), along with 70 subsidiaries, filed for chapter 11 protection in the District of Delaware as part of a deal it has reached through lengthy negotiations with some of its largest senior creditors to restructure roughly $50 billion in debt.
Recently, a chink to the armor of distressed debt purchasers resonated throughout the secondary market with the decision of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in In re Fisker Automotive Holdings, in which the bankruptcy court limited the right to credit bid of
Despite the absence of any provision in the Bankruptcy Code expressly authorizing the recharacterization of a debt claim to an equity interest, it generally is well-established that recharacterization is within the broad powers afforded a bankruptcy court under section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and is necessary for the proper application of the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme.1 In a recharacterization analysis, a
bankruptcy court ignores the labels of a transaction, examines the facts, and determines whether a
After the housing market collapse, many cities and towns fell on hard times and have yet to recover. In quite a few communities, housing prices remain low, municipal debt levels are unsustainable, and attempts to raise revenue have been rejected by voters—who are often cash-strapped themselves. Bankruptcy offers breathing room, political cover for tough decisions, and the chance to renegotiate collective bargaining agreements and restructure debt. The bankruptcy process is frequently used by businesses and individuals seeking a “fresh start.” Why don’t more dist
Assignees of Loan Only Entitled to One Collective Vote on Plan
Debt exchanges have long been utilized by distressed companies to address liquidity concerns and to take advantage of beneficial market conditions. A company saddled with burdensome debt obligations, for example, may seek to exchange existing notes for new notes with the same outstanding principal but with borrower-favorable terms, like delayed payment or extended maturation dates (a "Face Value Exchange"). Or the company might seek to exchange existing notes for new notes with a lower face amount, motivated by discounted trading values for the existing notes (a "Fair Value Exchange").
In In re Fisker Automotive Holdings, Inc., 2014 BL 13998 (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 17, 2014), leave to app. denied, 2014 BL 33749 (D. Del. Feb. 7, 2014), certification denied, 2014 BL 37766 (D. Del. Feb. 12, 2014), a Delaware bankruptcy court limited a creditor's ability to credit bid its debt in connection with the sale of a hybrid car manufacturer's assets.
What recourse is there for a plaintiff seeking to recover a debt when the defendant goes bankrupt during suit, and its owner commences operating essentially the same business through another legal entity? Can successor liability be asserted and, if so, how? Those issues played out in the recent case of Marange Printing, Inc. v. Finish Line NJ, Inc., et al., Superior Court of New Jersey, Docket No. A-2735-12T2 (decided March 7, 2014).
Until recently, the creditor of a chapter 7 debtor whose debts were not primarily consumer in naturewas unable to rely on Eleventh Circuit precedent to support its position that its debtor's chapter 7 bankruptcy case should be dismissed for bad faith.
A central purpose of bankruptcy is to grant debtors a fresh start – in bankruptcy terms, a “discharge” of existing debts. But not all debts are dischargeable. Bankruptcy Code § 523(a)(2)(A), for example, prevents the discharge of debts resulting from “false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud . . . .” What if a principal incurs a large debt based not on his own fraud, but on the fraud of his agent? Is that debt dischargeable? That was the question addressed recently by the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel inIn re Huh, BAP No.