Because we couldn’t possibly top Judge Fisher’s opening line, we’re borrowing it for our introduction of In re Daniel W.
Insider status in U.S. bankruptcy carries with it significant burdens. Insiders face a one year preference exposure rather than the 90 day period applicable to non-insiders; insiders are by definition disinterested persons and may not be retained to provide professional services and transactions among debtors and their insiders are subject to heightened scrutiny under the entire fairness doctrine.
The extent of a transferee’s knowledge in the context of fraudulent transfer claims under the Bankruptcy Code has been a frequent topic of discussion on the Weil Bankruptcy Blog.
On August 28, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit[1] delivered a stern admonition about the risk of failing to appeal when it ruled that a union that had not filed a notice of appeal could not benefit from a successful appeal by another union in the same matter.
In an opinion filed on July 3, 2014, in the case of In re Lower Bucks Hospital, et al., Case No. 10-10239 (ELF), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Third Circuit) affirmed a decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Bankruptcy Court), which denied approval of third-party releases benefitting The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., in its capacity as indenture trustee (BNYM, or the Trustee).
In a petition for a writ of certiorari, plaintiffs alleging harm by exposure to the flavoring agent diacetyl have argued that the Third Circuit erred in ruling that Aaroma Holdings cannot be held liable for the actions of diacetyl producer Emoral Inc., which Aaroma purchased following the alleged exposures. Diacetyl Plaintiffs v. Aaroma Holdings, No. 14-71 (U.S., petition for writ of certiorari filed July 18, 2014).
On June 17, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals1 vacated a District Court’s dismissal order and resuscitated a bankruptcy appeal brought by a group of litigation creditors seeking recourse against the debtors post-confirmation.2 The Third Circuit opinion is an important reminder to both debtors and creditors that the doctrine of “equitable mootness” has limits and that confirmation of a plan does not preclude review of post-confirmation actions inconsistent with obligations in the plan.
An indenture trustee learned a hard lesson last week when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the description of a feature of its settlement with the debtor in a disclosure statement was inadequate and rendered a key element of the plan and the settlement unenforceable against third-party litigants. It is well established that adequate disclosure of a release provision contained in a reorganization plan is essential to its inclusion in the plan and its enforceability against third parties.
Earlier this week, the Third Circuit affirmed a federal bankruptcy court’s dismissal of a mesothelioma claim against a bankrupt oil company that arose as an adversary proceeding fifteen years after the bankruptcy plan was confirmed and discharged all outstanding claims. The Circuit held that because the parties conceded the claim arose at the time of the victim’s asbestos exposure, which pre-dated the defendant’s bankruptcy, a
In the March/April 2014 edition of the Business Restructuring Review, we discussed an important ruling from a Delaware bankruptcy court restricting a creditor’s right to credit bid an acquired claim in bankruptcy sale of the underlying collateral. In In re Fisker Automotive Holdings, Inc., 2014 BL 13998 (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 17, 2014), leave to app. denied, 2014 BL 33749 (D. Del. Feb. 7, 2014), certification denied, 2014 BL 37766 (D. Del. Feb. 12, 2014), the bankruptcy court limited the amount of the credit bid to the discounted purchase price actually paid for the debt.