In the recent decision in Re Xerium Technologies Inc.1, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recognized an order made by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware that confirmed the debtor’s pre-packaged Chapter 11 plan of reorganization. The decision provides useful guidance on how the Ontario Court may consider similar applications in the future. Many will take comfort from the fact that the decision revisits a number of relevant factors established in case law that pre-dates the current formulation of the cross-border provisions that make up Part IV of the CCA A.

On November 8, 2018, Judge Vyskocil of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision dismissing the involuntary petition that had been filed against Taberna Preferred Funding IV, Ltd. (“Taberna”), a non-recourse CDO, thus ending a nearly seventeen-month-long saga that was followed closely by bankruptcy practitioners and securitization professionals alike. SeeTaberna Preferred Funding IV, Ltd. v. Opportunities II Ltd., et. al., (In re Taberna Preferred Funding IV, Ltd.), No. 17-11628 (MKV), 2018 WL 5880918, at *24 (Bankr.

Last Thursday, a Delaware Bankruptcy Court disqualified two law firms from representing an Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors based on their conduct in soliciting proxies from creditors who were not existing firm clients. In re Universal Building Products, No. 10-12453 (Bankr. D. Del. Nov. 4, 2010), involved an extreme fact pattern but it may nonetheless have a substantial effect not only on the selection of professionals for future Committees but also on the appointment of creditors to Committees, at least in Delaware.

The Delaware Court of Chancery has held the seller in an asset purchase transaction liable for breach of an exclusivity provision in the subject asset purchase agreement, dismissing the seller's argument that the fiduciary duties owed by management to creditors negate the contractual exclusivity provision.

When a special servicer or third-party manager takes over a distressed asset or franchise, no one thinks about labor and employment issues until a problem surfaces. While a special servicer or third-party manager with its own employees in the area can usually expect a smooth transition, these arrangements often occur in places that are far-removed from the headquarters or home office. A special servicer may simply assume that it is taking over the former operator’s employees, and not think twice about other labor issues.

On April 26, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States adopted a completely revamped version of Rule 2019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure to govern disclosure requirements for groups and committees that consist of or represent multiple creditors or equity security holders, as well as lawyers and other entities that represent multiple creditors or equity security holders, acting in concert to advance common interests in a chapter 9 or chapter 11 bankruptcy case.

In re Indianapolis Downs, LLC, et al., 486 B.R. 286 (Bankr. D. Del. 2013)

CASE SNAPSHOT

On January 31, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware confirmed the debtors’ proposed plan of reorganization in In re Indianapolis Downs, LLC,¹ declining to “designate” or disallow the votes of several substantial creditors that had entered into a plan support or “lockup” agreement with the debtors after the bankruptcy filing. In a written decision,² the Bankruptcy Court provided important guidance concerning the permissibility of post-petition plan support agreements entered into before the court approves a disclosure statement.

Rejecting the formalistic approach, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in Indianapolis Downs, LLC¹ focused on the policies underlying the idea of the disclosure statement to uphold a post-petition lock-up agreement, entered into before approval of a disclosure statement, with sophisticated financial players who had access to the material information that the disclosure statement would have provided.

On January 31, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in In re Indianapolis Downs, LLC¹ declined to designate the votes of parties to a post-petition restructuring support agreement (i.e., a lock-up agreement), instead confirming the Debtors’ Modified Second Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization (the “Plan”) based on the votes of such parties.