A few months ago, a ruling in the Chapter 11 case of Fisker Automotive narrowed a secured creditor’s right to credit bid its debt in connection with a sale of the debtor’s assets. The decision surprised many observers and resurrected uncertainty about a debtor’s ability to limit a secured lender’s credit bidding rights (a dispute that appeared to have been firmly r
Fisker Automotive’s chapter 11 case began in what has become a depressingly familiar fashion – a fast-tracked sale to a secured lender. However, two rulings by Judge Kevin Gross of the U.S.
A few weeks ago in In re S. White Transportation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit permitted a secured creditor that had indisputably received notice of the debtor’s chapter 11 case, but took no steps to protect its interests until after the confirmation of the debtor’s plan, to continue to assert a lien against the debtor’s property post-confirmation.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has taken under advisement the latest case involving the now contentious issue of credit bidding.
As discussed in previous posts on this site, back in December the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a summary order that reversed the bankruptcy court’s confirmation of the reorganization plan (the “Plan”) of DBSD North America, f/k/a ICO North America (“DBSD”).
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a summary order this week upholding the aggressively unfavorable treatment of a senior secured creditor under the reorganization plan (the “Plan”) of DBSD North America, f/k/a ICO North America (“DBSD”).
The chapter 11 case of DBSD North America, Inc. (“DBSD”), f/k/a ICO North America, has been marked by aggressive tactics and extreme positions from its commencement. DBSD, a non-operating satellite communications company, and its second lien noteholders made clear their intent to cram down a plan of reorganization (the “Plan”) on DBSD’s first lien lenders.
Key Points:
The NSW Supreme Court says it can provide directions on an administrator's commercial decision on the basis of the liability assumed by administrators and their partners.
Receivers and employees are the greatest losers from a recent chain of court cases. Unless overturned on appeal or by legislation, the cases impose financial burdens on employees and administrative burdens on receivers.
At stake are employees' accrued leave entitlements and the statutory requirement to pay them once a company enters external administration. Employees of companies in receivership can lose entitlements they would ordinarily receive during liquidation depending entirely on the time at which a company enters administration or liquidation.
There remain a number of issues in the proposed insolvency reforms that need careful deliberation, particularly where the Regulations have yet to be released for consideration.