In this post-Stern opinion (the “Opinion”), the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Court”) addresses two main issues with respect to the approval of nonconsensual third-party releases provided for in a chapter 11 plan of confirmation, namely whether a Bankruptcy Court has (1) subject matter jurisdiction to approve, and (2) the constitutional authority to grant such releases. Opinion at 2.

Fairway Energy, LP, along with two subsidiaries and affiliates, has filed a chapter 11 petition for relief in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 18-12684).

Bankruptcy remote structures have become common in recent years to attempt to prevent a borrower from filing for Chapter 11. One such structure is commonly referred to as a “golden share.” The “golden share” typically refers to a noneconomic membership interest provided to a lender whose vote would be necessary for the borrower to file Chapter 11.

The Fifth Circuit in InreFranchiseServs.ofN.Am.,Inc., 891 F.3d 198, 209

Since February 2016, the Local Rules for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware provide for combined hearings on approval of disclosure statements and confirmation of plans and for the use of combined disclosure statement and plans in liquidating chapter 11 cases.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently issued an opinion that could mean that directors and officers of insolvent entities face liability for damages caused by the failure to timely file for bankruptcy protection.

In a case of first impression, DLA Piper argued before the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware that a consent provision in a Delaware LLC operating agreement effectively granting a creditor a veto right over a debtor’s decision to file for bankruptcy was void because it was contrary to federal public policy.

In Quadrant Structured Products Co. v. Vertin, 2015 WL 2062115 (Del. Ch. May 4, 2015), the Delaware Court of Chancery (Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster) announced a bright-line standard governing the threshold inquiry of when a creditor can maintain a derivative suit against directors for breach of fiduciary duty. The court held that a creditor need only establish that the company was balance sheet insolvent at the time the suit was filed and that the creditor’s standing will not be extinguished if the company rides back into solvency during the litigation.

On March 14 2014 the Delaware Chancery Court found RBC Capital Advisors (RBC) liable for aiding and abetting the breach of fiduciary duty of the board of directors of Rural/Metro, stemming from the sale of the company to Warburg Pincus.

While the details of the court’s decision are contained in Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster’s 91-page opinion, several salient points are important to understand:

A lender’s right to recover a make-whole premium as part of its allowed claim in a bankruptcy case has been the subject of several recent court decisions. A Delaware bankruptcy court recently allowed a make-whole premium of $23.7 million on a $67 million term loan^[1] and found that the premium was not “plainly disproportionate” to the creditor’s possible loss. As a result, the make-whole was not an unenforceable penalty under New York law. In re School Specialty, Inc., No. 13-10125, Slip Op. (Bankr. D. Del. Apr. 22, 2013).^[2]

Facts

In a Jan. 20, 2010, opinion, Judge Christopher S. Sontchi of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held that a group of investors who had together proposed a plan of reorganization for the debtor did not have to comply with the disclosure requirements of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2019 (“Rule 2019”) In re Premier International Holdings, Inc., No. 09-12019 (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 20, 2010) (Sontchi, J.) (“Six Flags”). In Six Flags, Judge Sontchi expressly disagreed with two prior decisions on the subject of Rule 2019 disclosure, one by Judge Mary K.