On January 25, 2019, the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or “Commission”) issued an order clarifying its position with regard to bankruptcy filings that seek to reject Commission-jurisdictional wholesale power purchase agreements. In response to a petition for a declaratory order and complaint filed by NextEra Energy, Inc. and NextEra Energy Partners, L.P.

Summary

Husky Int’l Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz, No. 15-145

Debtors seek the protections of the Bankruptcy Code to have their debts discharged, but there are exceptions. A creditor can prohibit discharge of a debt “obtained by … actual fraud.” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Today, in a 7-1 decision written by Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme Court ruled that a fraudulent conveyance qualifies as “actual fraud.”

Generally with a winding-up petition, if the petitioner is successful in obtaining a winding-up order, the petitioner will have its costs of the  proceedings. If, on the other hand, the petition is dismissed, then the petitioner has been  unsuccessful and it should pay the costs of the proceedings. We explore the Companies Court’s  treatment of costs in three recent decisions below.

From what Assets should a Petitioner have its Costs?

In a case of importance to foreign representatives of foreign debtors seeking the assistance of US courts pursuant to chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held that the debtor eligibility requirements of section 109(a) of the US Bankruptcy Code apply in cases under chapter 15 as they would in cases under other chapters of the Bankruptcy Code. The decision in Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), Case No. 13-612 (2d Cir. Dec.

Did you know that the court's guiding principle on assessing remuneration for liquidators in respect of their administration of trust assets held by the company is similar to the principle applicable to liquidation work, that is, on a "value for money" basis rather than as an indemnity against cost?

Section 1129(b)(2)(A)(iii) of the Bankruptcy Code allows a court to find that a chapter 11 “cramdown” plan is “fair and equitable” to an objecting class of secured creditors if the plan provides for the realization by such holders of the “indubitable equivalent” of their claims. Section 1129(b)(2)(A)(ii), through reference to Section 363(k), permits the sale of collateral free and clear of liens if secured creditors are allowed to “credit bid”—that is, to bid the value of their claim in an auction of the collateral.

The recent bankruptcy filings by infrastructure companies Connector 2000 Association Inc., South Bay Expressway, L.P., California Transportation Ventures, Inc., and the Las Vegas Monorail Company have tested the structures utilized to implement public-private partnerships (P3s) in the United States in several respects. It is still too early to draw definitive conclusions about the impact of these proceedings on P3 structures going forward, but initial rulings in two of the cases are already focusing the minds of project participants on threshold structuring considerations.

In its January 14, 2022 decision in In re Wolfson, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware discharged Chapter 7 debtor Ryan K.

In a decision rendered on May 25, 2021, in Special Appeal No. 1.851.692, the Fourth Panel of the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (“STJ”) decided that the holder of a credit who is voluntarily excluded from the reorganization plan has the prerogative of deciding whether to present a proof of claim so that its credit is subject to the judicial reorganization plan or to file for individual execution after the judicial reorganization proceeding ends.