We hope you are emerging from your sugar coma and ready for some easy to digest morsels of the Weil Bankruptcy Blog.  With this entry, we summarize the blog entries from the second half of October. 

In a Twist, Court Finds That Junior Stakeholders Violated Their Implied Duties Under an Indenture

Congress made clear in its enactment of section 503(b)(3)(D) of the Bankruptcy Code that, to the extent a creditor makes a substantial contribution in a chapter 9 or chapter 11 bankruptcy case, that creditor should be rewarded.  Because the reward — reimbursement of fees and expenses as administrative expenses of the estate —

Some bankruptcy cases can have long tails with issues developing years after the entities confirm their chapter 11 plans.  That seems to be particularly true when cases deal with mass torts.  As the recent case of Piper Aircraft Corporation demonstrates, an issue can arise in a chapter 11 case over twenty years after the debtor’s plan was confirmed.  In

The High Court in London gave judgment on parts A and B of the Lehman Waterfall II Application on 31 July 2015.  The application is part of the ongoing dispute as to the distribution of the estimated surplus of more than £7 billion in the main Lehman operating company in Europe, Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE).

Benjamin Franklin is quoted as having said “in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.”  No offense to Mr. Franklin, but we had always thought that there was at least one other certainty in this world—in a bankruptcy case, creditors get paid pursuant to the priority scheme under section 507(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.  It turns out, however, that Mr.

Introduction

Earlier this month, the English Insolvency and Companies Court (the “ICC”) made a limited civil restraint order against a shareholder who had repeatedly sought, unmeritoriously, to challenge the 2017 restructuring of Paragon Offshore plc (in liquidation) (“Paragon”) (Hammersley v Soden & Ors [2022] EWHC 223 (Ch)).

Executive Summary

Executive Summary

A recent decision from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, In re Care Ctrs., LLC, No. 18-33967, 2020 Bankr. LEXIS 3205 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Nov. 12, 2020), examined (1) the scope of bankruptcy court subject-matter jurisdiction for post-confirmation actions filed in state court and removed to bankruptcy court; and (2) when the court must or should abstain and remand a proceeding back to the court where the action was originally brought.

Before ingesting too much holiday cheer, we encourage you to consider a recent opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Weil Bankruptcy Blog connoisseurs will recall that, in May 2019, we wrote on the Southern District of New York’s decision in In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation, Case No. 12-2652, 2019 WL 1771786 (S.D.N.Y. April 23, 2019) (Cote, J.) (“Tribune I”).

Executive Summary

On December 27, 2018, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued an opinion in In re La Paloma Generating Co., Case No. 16-12700 (Bankr. D. Del. Dec. 27, 2018) [Docket No. 1274], that should raise substantial concerns for junior secured creditors.

In particular, the La Paloma opinion determined that: