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.
Judge Stacey Jernigan did not mince words in a recent opinion sanctioning the former CEO of Highland Capital Management, LP. Entities related to the former CEO brought suit against Highland (the debtor in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding), and sought leave from the district court to add Highland’s replacement CEO as a defendant. In Judge Jernigan’s view, such conduct violated her “gatekeeping” orders that required the bankruptcy court’s approval before “pursuing” actions against the new CEO.
Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code creates a framework through which a debtor can elect to either assume or reject an executory contract. Because the Bankruptcy Code does not define “executory,” courts utilize various tests to determine if a debtor can assume a contract—and thus be obligated to perform—or reject a contract—and thus the contract is deemed breached immediately prior to the bankruptcy filing date. The Countryman test is overwhelmingly the most commonly applied test to determine a contract’s executory nature.
This week’s TGIF looks at a recent Federal Court decision which offers guidance on when receivers may be released from claims arising out of their appointment and relieved from filing and serving formal accounts.
Key Takeaways
On August 15, 2021, Aluminum Shapes LLC, a Delair, New Jersey-based aluminum fabricator and processing company, filed a petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey (Case No. 21-16520). The company estimates $10 to $50 million in assets and liabilities.
In a recent judgment, the English Court of Appeal gives guidance on when a non-party costs order will be made against directors or shareholders of an insolvent company engaged in litigation. The judgment will be of interest to all involved in insolvency based litigation.
A snap shot of the courts’ jurisdiction to make costs orders against non-parties
According to the American Bankruptcy Institute, total commercial Chapter 11 filings in July 2021 decreased 62 percent from the previous year. Commercial Chapter 11 filings totaled 244 in July 2021, down from the July 2020 total of 644. Lender forbearance, continued low interest rates, and massive financial intervention by the U.S. and economies world-wide have allowed financially distressed companies to survive during the pandemic. As relief programs recede, however, we will likely see an increase in Chapter 11 filings.
Der Bundesgerichtshof hat in einer aktuellen Entscheidung seine Rechtsprechung zur Vorsatzanfechtung nach § 133 InsO neu ausgerichtet. Die Anforderungen für diesen in der Praxis äußerst relevanten Anfechtungstatbestand wurden merklich erhöht.
Der nachfolgende Beitrag soll dem Leser einen Überblick über die wesentlichen Neuerungen verschaffen.
The High Court has, for the first time since the introduction of the legislation in June 2020, refused to sanction a cross-class cram-down restructuring plan under Part 26A of the Companies Act. In In the matter of Hurricane Energy Plc [2021] EWHC 1759 (Ch), the court rejected a plan supported by bondholders because it had not been shown that the opposing shareholders had no better alternative prospects (i.e., the ‘no worse off condition’ had not been met).
Two controversial mechanisms are available in many circuits to assist parties in a chapter 11 case to reach a global resolution and obtain plan confirmation: non-consensual third-party releases and preliminary stays against third-party litigation.