In Del. Trust Co. v. Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. LLC (In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.), 527 B.R. 178 (Bankr. D. Del. 2015), the bankruptcy court ruled that, even though a chapter 11 debtor repaid certain bonds prior to maturity, a "make-whole" premium was not payable under the plain terms of the bond indenture because automatic acceleration of the debt triggered by the debtor's chapter 11 filing was not a "voluntary" repayment.

In Ritchie Capital Mgmt., LLC v. Stoebner, 779 F.3d 857 (8th Cir. 2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a bankruptcy court’s decision that transfers of trademark patents were avoidable under section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code and Minnesota state law because they were made with the intent to defraud creditors.

The ability of a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") to assume, assume and assign, or reject executory contracts and unexpired leases is an important tool designed to promote a "fresh start" for debtors and to maximize the value of the bankruptcy estate for the benefit of all stakeholders. However, the Bankruptcy Code and the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure ("Bankruptcy Rules") establish strict requirements for the assumption, assignment, and rejection of contracts and leases. The U.S.

U.S. courts have a long-standing tradition of recognizing or enforcing the laws and court rulings of other nations as an exercise of international "comity." It has been generally understood that recognition of a foreign bankruptcy proceeding under chapter 15 is a prerequisite to a U.S. court enforcing, under the doctrine of comity, an order or judgment entered in a foreign bankruptcy proceeding or a provision in foreign bankruptcy law applicable to a debtor in such a proceeding.

In This Issue:

The Year in Bankruptcy: 2020

A brief chronicle of the year's notable developments in corporate bankruptcy and restructuring. [read more …]

Focus on Health Care Provider Bankruptcies

Courts sometimes disagree over whether provisions in a borrower's organizational documents designed to prevent the borrower from filing for bankruptcy are enforceable as a matter of federal public policy or applicable state law. There has been a handful of court rulings addressing this issue in recent years, with mixed results.

Appointment of PROMESA Financial Oversight Board Was Constitutional

The Netherlands is planning to adopt new restructuring legislation, allowing for court confirmation of extrajudicial restructuring plans (Wet Homologatie Onderhands Akkoord, or WHOA). The bill combines features of the U.S. chapter 11 procedure and the English Scheme of Arrangement. With its broad range of jurisdiction and flexibility, the "Dutch Scheme" will prove to be an effective addition to the restructuring toolbox for both Dutch and non-Dutch entities, for groups of companies, and with the possibility of automatic recognition throughout the European Union.

In In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., 2019 WL 2535700 (3d Cir. June 19, 2019), a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that adequate protection payments made during a bankruptcy case and distributions under a chapter 11 plan are not distributions of collateral for purposes of a "waterfall" provision in an intercreditor agreement.

Intercreditor and Subordination Agreements

On January 10, 2019, the Italian government approved the Code for Distress and Insolvency (Codice della Crisi d’Impresa e dell’Insolvenza—the "CDI" ) as part of Legislative Decree No. 14 of 2019, to replace the Italian Bankruptcy Law of 1942. With certain exceptions, the CDI will enter into force on August 14, 2020, unless amended by the Italian Parliament prior to the effective date.