The Bottom Line

The Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey denied the Debtors’ request for approval of a sale of property free and clear of liens encumbering the property. The court determined that the term “value” in section 363(f)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code referred to the face value of all liens on the property and not the “economic value”. Because the value of liens encumbering the property in this case exceeded the proposed sale price, the property could not be sold free and clear of all liens pursuant to section 363(f)(3).

The Essential Resource for Today's Busy Insolvency Professional

The International Scene

George W. Shuster, Jr. WilmerHale Boston and New York

Benjamin W. Loveland WilmerHale Boston

George Shuster is a partner with WilmerHale in its Boston and New York offices. Benjamin Loveland is counsel in the firm's Boston office.

By George W. Shuster, Jr. and Benjamin W. Loveland

Upside Down in Chapter 15

Can U.S. Entities Qualify as "Foreign" Debtors in the U.S.?

On a motion to “’confirm the trial schedule,’” Vice Chancellor Glasscock determined that actions brought by the limited partners of a partnership based upon the general partner’s alleged fraud, self interest and breach of the partnership agreement were direct claims and therefore not subject to a stay pursuant to the partnership’s bankruptcy proceeding. Sehoy Energy LP et al. v. Haven Real Estate Group, LLC et al., C.A. No. 12387-VCG (Del. Ch.

Marsh Supermarkets Holding, LLC, and 15 of its affiliates, has filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 17-11066-BLS). The petition lists between $0 and $50,000 in assets and between $50 and $100 million in liabilities.

From theory to practice, planning to enforcement, the answers to 42 of the most frequently asked questions can help you prepare, cope or respond to a restructuring. This Client Alert answers some of the most frequently asked questions with respect to the treatment of pension-plan liabilities and other post-employment benefits (OPEB) obligations in US bankruptcies. Understanding the treatment of pension and OPEB obligations in bankruptcy continues to be important in today’s business environment and the law relating to the treatment of these obligations continues to evolve.

This article was published in a slightly different form in the November 2016 issue of Futures & Derivatives Law by The Journal on the Law of Investment & Risk Management Products.

Introduction

(W.D. Ky. May 2, 2017)

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, after a lengthy trial, dismissed on April 21, 2017 a litigation trustee’s multibillion-dollar bankruptcy-related claims arising out of a December 2007 merger, finding that:

In an opinion by Judge Roth issued on March 30, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that two suppliers who had sold electrical materials to a bankrupt contractor had violated the automatic stay by asserting a construction lien against the owner of the development where the contractor had installed the materials supplied.

As noted in a recent Distressing Matters post, the United States Supreme Court in In re Jevic Holding Corp. held that debtors cannot use structured dismissals to make payments to creditors in violation of ordinary bankruptcy distribution priority rules.