The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey recently held that a Cayman Islands collateralized-debt obligation issuer (“CDO”) could be a debtor under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) and declined to dismiss an involuntary case commenced against the CDO by certain noteholders on the grounds that the notes held by such noteholders were “non-recourse” notes. Below is a discussion of the court’s decision and its potential implications. The decision is currently being appealed.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, on Oct. 19, 2010, corrected a bankruptcy court’s calculation of a secured lender group’s superpriority administrative claim more than two years after consummation of the debtor’s Chapter 11 reorganization plan. In re SCOPAC et al., F.3d__, 2010 WL 4069525, at *2-3, *5-6 (5th Cir. Oct. 19, 2010) (Jones, Ch.J.) [“Pacific Lumber II”]; see alsoIn re Pacific Lumber Co., 584 F.3d 229, 242 (5th Cir. 2009) [“Pacific Lumber I”] (plan “substantially consummated within weeks of confirmation”).

The Joint Administrators (the “Administrators”) of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (“LBIE”) announced on Oct. 5, 2009, that they are developing a contractual (i.e., non-judicial) alternative to their proposed Scheme of Arrangement, which is the subject of an appeal following a decision by the High Court in London that it lacks jurisdiction to implement the scheme.

The Prior Proposed Scheme of Arrangement

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently held that insiders who control the operations of a debtor owe a duty, as fiduciaries, to refrain from self-dealing. In re Brook Valley VII, Joint Venture (Lange v. Schropp), 496 F.3d 892 (8th Cir. 2007). The controlling insiders of two Chapter 11 debtors had thus breached their fiduciary duties to the debtors when they caused the debtors to consent to a foreclosure sale of estate properties and then secretly purchased the properties for themselves at the sale.

For the second time in four weeks, a U.S. district court questioned the authority of bankruptcy courts to issue nonconsensual third-party releases as part of a plan of reorganization.

On Oct. 27, 2020, Judge Marvin Isgur for the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas held that (1) a make-whole premium was not interest or unmatured interest and thus not subject to disallowance, (2) a make-whole claim was enforceable as liquidated damages under New York law and (3) the solvent debtor exception survived the enactment of the Bankruptcy Code and the Noteholders were entitled to postpetition interest at the contractual default rate.

“[A] party moving for substantive consolidation must provide notice of the motion to the creditors of a putative consolidated non-debtor,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Sept. 9, 2019. In re Mihranian, 2019 WL 4252115 (9th Cir. Sept. 9, 2019) (emphasis added).

“The right of setoff … allows entities to apply their mutual debts against each other to avoid the pointless exercise of ‘making A pay B when B owes A.’” held the Seventh Circuit on Aug. 17, 2018. Berg v. Social Security Administration, 900 F.3d 864, 868 (7th Cir. 2018). But the Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) limits “a creditor’s right of setoff during the ninety-day period prior to the” date of bankruptcy, said the court. Id.

“[T]he Bankruptcy Code does not permit [an undersecured] creditor . . . to advance an unsecured claim for post-[bankruptcy] attorneys’ fees,” held the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on Nov. 27, 2017. Summitbridge Nat’l Invs. Iii v. Faison, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195267, *8 (E.D. N. C. Nov. 27, 2017). Affirming the bankruptcy court, the district court agreed that “the Code is most properly interpreted to allow only oversecured creditors to add post-[bankruptcy] attorneys’ fees.” Id., at *10.

A Chapter 11 debtor “cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure,” held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 4, 2016. In re New Investments Inc., 2016 WL 6543520, *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) (2-1).