The scope of discovery available in a bankruptcy case concerning a debtor's conduct, property, financial condition, and related matters is so broad that it has sometimes been likened to a permissible "fishing expedition." However, a ruling recently handed down by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York demonstrates that there are limits to the information that can be discovered in bankruptcy. In In re Cambridge Analytica LLC, 600 B.R. 750 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.

In In re Argon Credit, LLC, 2019 WL 169315 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Jan. 10, 2019), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled that, in accordance with section 510(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, a standby clause in a subordination agreement prevented a subordinated lender from conducting discovery concerning the senior lender’s claims.

In Short

The Situation: The statutory moratorium period for voluntary administrators to restructure an insolvent company often is too short to find a solution. Administrators frequently utilise "holding" deeds of company arrangement ("DOCAs") to extend the moratorium and "buy" time to investigate potential restructuring opportunities. A creditor challenged this practice by arguing that holding DOCAs are invalid.

The Question: Are holding DOCAs valid under the Corporations Act 2001(Cth)?

In Antone Corp. v. Haggen Holdings, LLC (In re Haggen Holdings, LLC), 2017 WL 3730527 (D. Del. Aug. 30, 2017), the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware considered whether, as part of a bankruptcy asset sale, a chapter 11 debtor could assume and assign a nonresidential real property lease without giving effect to a clause in the lease requiring the debtor to share 50 percent of any net profits realized upon assignment.

In Short

The Situation: Frequently, the statutory moratorium period provided to voluntary administrators to restructure an insolvent company is too short to find a solution. Administrators often utilise "holding" deeds of company arrangement to extend the period of moratorium and "buy" time to investigate potential restructuring opportunities for the future of the company. A creditor recently challenged this industrywide practice by arguing that holding DOCAs are invalid.

On February 1, 2017, the Supreme Court of Singapore and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware announced that they had formally implemented Guidelines for Communication and Cooperation between Courts in Cross-Border Insolvency Matters (the "Guidelines"). The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York adopted the Guidelines on February 17, 2017.

Only a handful of courts have had an opportunity to address the ramifications of rejection of a trademark license since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit handed down its landmark decision in Sunbeam Prods., Inc. v. Chicago Am. Manuf., LLC, 686 F.3d 372 (7th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 790 (2012). A bankruptcy appellate panel for the First Circuit recently did so in Mission Prod. Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology LLC (In re Tempnology LLC), 559 B.R. 809 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2016).

Secured lenders have welcomed a ruling recently handed down by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in the chapter 11 cases of Aéropostale, Inc. and its affiliates (collectively, "Aéropostale"). In In re Aéropostale, Inc., 2016 BL 279439 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2016), Bankruptcy Judge Sean H.

One of the prerequisites to confirmation of any chapter 11 plan is that at least one “impaired” class of creditors must vote in favor of the plan. This requirement reflects the basic (but not universally accepted) 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 1994, Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code to, among other things, add section 1123(d), which provides that, if a chapter 11 plan proposes to “cure” a default under a contract, the cure amount must be determined in accordance with the underlying agreement and applicable nonbankruptcy law. Since then, a majority of courts have held that such a cure amount must include any default-rate interest required under either the contract or applicable nonbankruptcy law. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit endorses this view.