In a recent decision, In re Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., No. 18-10518 (KG) (Bankr. D. Del. Nov. 13, 2018), Judge Kevin Gross of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held that the mutuality requirement of section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code must be strictly construed, declining to find mutuality in a triangular setoff between the debtor, a parent entity that owed the debtor money, and that entity’s subsidiary, which was a creditor.

After Energy Future Holdings (EFH), maybe not so much. The size of the break-up fee approved by the bankruptcy court in EFH was undoubtedly large by any account – US$275 million. But it was approved following all necessary filings, notice and hearings. All parties and counsel involved were highly sophisticated and experienced. The court that approved the fee was the Delaware bankruptcy court, by all accounts one of the most experienced and sophisticated bankruptcy courts in the nation. And there wasn’t even a hint of fraud, misrepresentation or failure to disclose material facts.

Shareholder of a Korean corporation (“Cuzco Korea”), the sole member of a chapter 11 limited liability company debtor (“Cuzco USA” or the “Debtor”), brought an adversary proceeding against the Debtor and others, asserting claims directly, derivatively on behalf of Cuzco Korea and “double derivatively” on behalf of the Debtor. On the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the bankruptcy court for the district of Hawaii was required to consider the impact of Korean law on the derivative claims as well as notions of forum non conveniens.

The value of the legitimate cannabis industry in the United States (measured by annual sales) is rapidly approaching $10 billion and expected to exceed $20 billion within the next five years. As the market grows, many companies that do not grow or sell cannabis are nonetheless doing business with those that do. Media companies are running advertisements for dispensaries, agricultural-equipment manufacturers are selling machinery to cannabis growers, and lawyers, accountants, and other professionals are providing services to clients directly involved in the industry.

In prior posts, we examined whether state-licensed marijuana businesses, and those doing business with marijuana businesses, can seek relief under the Bankruptcy Code. As we noted, the Office of the United States Trustee (the “UST”) has taken the position that a marijuana business cannot seek bankruptcy relief because the business itself violates the Controlled Substances Act 21, U.S.C.

In a recent cross-border insolvency case, Judge Glenn of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recognized an insurance company rehabilitation proceeding in Curaçao as a “foreign main proceeding” under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code.[1]

Section 303 of the Bankruptcy Code provides a unique remedy to unsecured creditors seeking to collect their debts against an insolvent entity. A careful look at this remedy is contained in an earlier post, entitled Creditors’ Strategic Use of Involuntary Bankruptcy.

A recent chapter 15 decision by Judge Martin Glenn of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) suggests that third-party releases susceptible to challenge or rejection in chapter 11 proceedings may be recognized and enforced under chapter 15. This decision provides companies with cross-border connections a path to achieve approval of non-consensual third-party guarantor releases in the U.S.

Background

On December 12, 2018, Parker Drilling Company and its subsidiaries (“Debtors”), oilfield service companies headquartered in Houston, filed pre-negotiated chapter 11 cases in the United Stated Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. The Honorable Marvin Isgur is Presiding over the cases.

The Companies operate in two lines of business: (a) drilling services (i.e., oil, natural gas, and geothermal wells); and (b) rental tools and well services to E&P companies, drilling contractors and service companies.

The Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California recently granted a secured lender’s request for relief from the automatic stay, pursuant to sections 362(d)(1) and (d)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, to allow a trustee’s sale of the debtor’s marina under state law. In re Delta Waterways, LLC, Case No. 18-42076-CN (Bankr. N.D. Cal. December 7, 2018). Several missteps and omissions by the debtor appear to have driven the Court’s decision.