In the July/August 2010 edition of the Business Restructuring Review (Vol. 9, No. 4), we reported on significant changes to Rule 2019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure ("Rule 2019") recommended by the Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules (the "Rules Committee").

The penultimate year in the first decade of the second millennium was one for the ages, or at least most people hope so.

The solicitation of creditor votes on a plan is a crucial part of the chapter 11 process. At a minimum, a chapter 11 plan can be confirmed only if at least one class of impaired creditors (or interest holders) votes to accept the plan. A plan proponent’s efforts to solicit an adequate number of plan acceptances, however, may be complicated if creditors or other enfranchised stakeholders neglect (or choose not) to vote.

A fundamental premise of chapter 11 is that a debtor’s prebankruptcy management is presumed to provide the most capable and dedicated leadership for the company and should be allowed to continue operating the company’s business and managing its assets in bankruptcy while devising a viable business plan or other workable exit strategy. The chapter 11 “debtor-in-possession” (“DIP ”) is a concept rooted strongly in modern U.S. bankruptcy jurisprudence. Still, the presumption can be overcome.

One of the most significant changes to chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the 2005 amendments was the absolute limit placed on extensions of the exclusivity periods. Courts no longer have the discretion to extend a debtor’s exclusive periods to file and solicit a plan beyond 18 months and 20 months, respectively, after the petition date. Although the legislative history contains no explanation for why this change was made, Congress presumably intended to accelerate the reorganization process or facilitate the prospects for competing plans in large, complex cases.

Recent Developments in Bankruptcy and Restructuring
Volume 13 l No. 3 l May–June 2014 JONES DAY
Business
Restructuring
Review
Eighth Circuit Expands Subsequent New Value
Preference Defense in Cases Involving Three-Party
Relationships
Charles M Oellermann and Mark G. Douglas
A bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession has the power under section
547 of the Bankruptcy Code to avoid a transfer made immediately prior to
bankruptcy if the transfer unfairly prefers one or more creditors over the rest of

Where an Administrator makes employees redundant ahead of a sale of the business, will it always be a dismissal connected with a transfer (and therefore automatically unfair), or can it ever be for "economic, technical or organisational" (ETO) reasons (and therefore potentially fair)? In Crystal Palace FC Ltd –v- Kavanagh & ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1410, the Court of Appeal found for the latter, a more pragmatic, approach. Motivation, it appears, is everything in such cases. 

Following the culmination of two public comment periods spanning more than a year, the Office of the United States Trustee, a unit of the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) assigned to oversee bankruptcy cases, issued new final guidelines on June 11 governing the payment of attorneys’ fees and expenses in large chapter 11 cases—cases with $50 million or more in assets and $50 million or more in liabilities.

One of the prerequisites to confirmation of a cramdown (nonconsensual) chapter 11 plan is that at least one “impaired” class of creditors must vote in favor of the plan. This requirement reflects the basic principle that a plan may not be imposed on a dissident body of stakeholders of which no class has given approval. However, it is sometimes an invitation to creative machinations designed to muster the requisite votes for confirmation of the plan.

In the July/August 2012 edition of the Business Restructuring Review, we reported on a Delaware bankruptcy-court ruling that reignited the debate concerning whether sold or assigned claims can be subject to disallowance under section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code on the basis of the seller’s receipt of a voidable transfer. In In re KB Toys, Inc., 470 B.R. 331 (Bankr. D. Del. 2012), the court rejected as unworkable the distinction between a sale and an assignment of a claim for purposes of disallowance that was drawn by the district court in Enron Corp. v. Springfield Associates, L.L.C.