On March 2, 2017, Cal Dive Offshore Contractors, Inc. (“Cal Dive” or “Debtor”) filed approximately 136 complaints seeking the avoidance and recovery of allegedly preferential and/or fraudulent transfers under Sections 547, 548 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code.
On August 29, 2016, the Third Circuit released a precedential opinion (the “Opinion”) which opined that a “[redemption] premium, meant to give the lenders the interest yield they expect, [does not] fall away because the full principal amount is now due and the noteholders are barred from rescinding the acceleration of debt.” The Third Circuit’s Opinion is available here. This Opinion was issued in an appeal from a decision made in the Energy Future Holdings Bankruptcy Case No. 14-10979.
On August 29, 2016, the Third Circuit released a precedential opinion (the “Opinion”) which opined on whether filing an involuntary bankruptcy petition could qualify as tortious interference under state law. The Third Circuit’s Opinion is available here. This Opinion was issued in Rosenberg v. DVI Receivables XVII, LLC, Case No. 15-2622. The District Court had ruled that the tortious interference claim was preempted by § 303(i) of the Bankruptcy Code.
On July 1, 2016, Gold Alchemy LLC filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. According to the petition, the debtor’s estimated assets are $10 to 50 million, and estimated liabilities are $50 to 100 million.
Alchemy is a distribution company formerly known as Millennium Entertainment. According to Deadline Hollywood:
In my May 26th post, I raised several questions that unsecured creditors in any Chapter 11 case should know the answers to and take action where appropriate.
Recently in the Abengoa SA bankruptcy proceeding (click here to review prior post), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware entered an order permitting Debtors to reject certain nonresidential real property leases (the “Rejection Order”).
The New Jersey Appellate Court has recently ruled that a receiver can be sued for injuries sustained in a building under the receiver’s control. The case involved a dilapidated apartment building in Passaic and injuries sustained thirteen months after the receiver was appointed by judge overseeing the foreclosure case of the first mortgage holder. The receiver was charged with responsibility to collect rent; manage, insure and repair the premises; pay taxes and assessments; and “do all things necessary for the due care and proper management of the mortgaged premises.” Acco
As San Bernardino became the third California city to file for municipal bankruptcy within one moth, Micheal Sweet appeared on the Lang and O'Leary Exchange to discuss the reasons so many U.S. cities are struggling.
Click here to view video.
In the case of Wagamon v. Dolan, C.A. No. 5594-VCG (Del. Ch. Apr. 20, 2012), the Court of Chancery reviewed Defendant William Krieg’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 56. This dispute involves the winding up of a joint venture, Internet Working Technologies, Inc. (“INT”) owned by Allan Wagamon and David B.
Summary
In a 32 page decision signed January 3, 2012, Judge Walrath of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court ruled that holders of litigation tracking warrants that would be paid out in stock of the debtor were equity instruments, and would be paid out at the same priority as common equity under the bankruptcy plan. Judge Walrath’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).
Background