It is a rare occasion that one can be assured with certainty that, if they file a motion with a bankruptcy court, it will be granted. But, in the Third Circuit, that is exactly what will happen if a creditor or other party in interest moves for an examiner to be appointed under Section 1104(c) of the Bankruptcy Code. Once considered to be within the discretion of a bankruptcy court “as is appropriate,” the appointment of an examiner is now guaranteed if the statutory predicates are fulfilled according to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
When leveraged buyouts (“LBOs”) fail, the selling shareholders are litigation targets. A common suit is a claim by a bankruptcy trustee asserting constructive fraudulent transfer claims seeking to claw-back payments to the selling shareholders from the loan proceeds that financed the LBO.
In the Matter of Holt Fund SPC (Unreported, 26 January 2024) is the first occasion where an application has been made to appoint Restructuring Officers over portfolios of a segregated portfolio company. At first glance the judgment appears uncontroversial. However, it highlights a lacuna in the law which readers should be aware of.
Background
The Petitioner sought the appointment of Restructuring Officers (ROs) in respect of two segregated portfolios of the Holt Fund SPC.
The Superior Court of Quebec rules in favor of Export Development Canada (“EDC”) and enforces a "[unequivocal]" Waiver against the surety who signed it in the context of a loan guarantee granted to the RBC.
Relevant Facts
The Dutch Supreme Court handed down a judgment (ECLI:NL:HR:2023:1751) on 15 December 2023 clarifying whether agreements entered into by a bankruptcy trustee with the approval of the supervisory judge can be affected by an application under Article 69 of the Dutch Bankruptcy Act (DBA).
What happens to funds recovered by the trustee after the final plan payment is made in a chapter 13 case? According to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Iowa, absent a plan provision providing otherwise, those funds revert to the debtors.
February, 2024 For Private Circulation - Educational & Informational Purpose Only A BRIEFING ON LEGAL MATTERS OF CURRENT INTEREST KEY HIGHLIGHTS ⁎ Supreme Court: Nomination process under the Companies Act, 1956/ Companies Act, 2013 does not override succession laws. ⁎ Supreme Court: Statutory set-off or insolvency set-off inapplicable to Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. ⁎ Bombay High Court: High Court upholds the termination of an employee stating that freedom of speech and expression cannot be allowed beyond reasonableness.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark RPS Infrastructure Ltd vs. Mukul Sharma[1]judgement, once again delved into the issue of claims being made beyond the statutorily prescribed timelines in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”).
Nilsson & Anor v Iqbal & Anor [2024] EWHC 49 (Ch) was an application by the joint trustees in bankruptcy of Mohammed Babar Iqbal for a declaration as to the beneficial ownership and an order for possession and sale of his former matrimonial home, Southview, Pollards Hill East in London. Mr Iqbal, the first respondent, did not appear to resist the trustees’ claim. The second respondent, Mrs Iqbal, did. She was his former wife under Islamic law.
One of the significant risks that creditors weigh when deciding whether to lend money is bankruptcy risk: can the borrower use the bankruptcy laws to discharge the debt or compel the creditor to accept less than it bargained for? In the sovereign debt market, it has been an article of faith for creditors that states cannot file for bankruptcy and obtain such relief. But a recent ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York—Hamilton Reserve Bank v.