Insight

Consider a lender that extends a term loan in the amount of $1 million to an entity debtor. The loan is guaranteed by the debtor’s owner. If both the debtor and the guarantor become subject to bankruptcy cases, it is settled that the lender has a claim of $1 million (ignoring interest and expenses) in each bankruptcy case. However, the lender cannot recover more than $1 million in total in the two cases combined. (Ivanhoe Building & Loan Ass'n of Newark, NJ v. Orr, 295 U.S. 243 (1935).)

The U.S. Supreme Court, in its Fulton v. City of Chicagoopinion, let Chicago off the automatic stay hook for holding onto impounded vehicles owned by Chapter 13 debtors.

But Fulton is not the last word on that subject.

The new opinion is Cordova, et al. v. City of Chicago, Case No. 19-0684 in the Northern Illinois Bankruptcy Court (issued December 6, 2021, Doc. 154).

Background

A Turkish court might declare concordat when a debtor, who has, or is threatened to be defaulted on his debts, agrees with its creditors on the restructuring of most of his debts.1 The concordat project governs how, when and to which extent the debt will be repaid. Upon its declaration, the concordat binds all creditors, even the ones that did not consent to it.

When the court accepts to review the concordat application, the court also provides three-months of provisional stay (geçici mühlet) during which it must take all precautions to protect the debtor’s assets.

The BVI Registrar of Corporate Affairs (the Registrar) maintains a Register of Companies (the Register) which records the name of each company incorporated or continued under the BVI Business Companies Act, 2004 (as amended) (the Act).

This guide examines the procedures by which the name of a company may be struck off, or restored to, the Register under the Act.

What is strike off?

In the Summer 2021 edition of the Restructuring Report, I wrote about legislative efforts to reform the Bankruptcy Code to place limits on the use of third party releases in bankruptcy plans of reorganization.

In the First, Sixth (in some districts within the circuit), Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits an appeal from a bankruptcy court order may go either to the district court, as elsewhere in the country, or, uniquely to those five circuits, to a Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP). The BAP is a three-judge panel selected from bankruptcy judges in the circuit but not the same district. Under the statute, presumptively the appeal goes to the BAP but the appellant may elect to go to the district court.

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.

Court watchers have kept a close eye on the In re: Purdue Pharma LP chapter 11 bankruptcy case, and for good reason. It is one of the largest cases to test a question that has divided the Circuit Courts of Appeals: can a debtor in its chapter 11 plan include releases from liability for non-debtor third parties over the objection of creditors? Although the debate over the answer has been stewing for some time now, a December 2021 decision from the Southern District of New York may finally cause the pot to boil over.

Earlier this year, Mexican airline, Grupo Aeromexico, S.A.B. de C.V. (together with its affiliates, the “Debtors”) announced that their creditor body had overwhelmingly voted to approve their proposed Chapter 11 restructuring plan (the “Plan”) save for one class of unsecured creditor claims that voted to reject the Plan. Those claims were held by Invictus Global Management, LLC (“Invictus”), a distressed investment fund that recently purchased the claims subject to a “plan support provision” which purportedly compelled the claimholder to support the Debtors’ Plan.

An “Order Staying the Later-Filed Bankruptcy Cases” is from In re The Aliera Companies Inc., Case No. 21-11548, Delaware Bankruptcy Court (issued January 18, 2022, Doc. 56), followed by an “Order Transferring Venue of the Later-Filed Voluntary Bankruptcy Cases” (issued January 25, 2022, Doc. 67) in the same case.