Recently, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held that a carve-out provision in a DIP financing order did not act as an absolute limit on the fees and expenses payable to the professionals retained by an unsecured creditors’ committee (the “Committee”). Rather, in In re Molycorp, Inc., 562 B.R. 67 (Bankr. D. Del.

Bankruptcy & Corporate Restructuring Bulletin

On January 30, 2017, Louisiana Medical Center and Heart Hospital, LLC, a 132-bed acute-care hospital located in the heart of St. Tammany Parish in Lacombe, Louisiana, filed for bankruptcy. As reported in papers filed with the bankruptcy court, Louisiana Medical failed in its effort to sell its hospital as a going concern prior to commencing its bankruptcy case and is now swiftly winding down its operations due to continuing losses.

In chapter 11 reorganizations, Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3003(c)(3) provides that “[t]he court shall fix and for cause shown may extend the time within which proofs of claim or interest may be filed” (commonly known as the bar date). For a creditor or interest holder to be subject to this bar date, they must have received notice to satisfy due process. A known creditor, one that is reasonably ascertainable, must receive “actual notice.” Simply receiving a court-approved bar date notice from the debtor is enough to satisfy this requirement for due process.

ATopTech, Inc. (“ATopTech” or “Debtor”), an electronic design automation software company manufacturing software solutions for engineers to assist them in the physical design of integrated circuits, filed a voluntary petition for chapter 11 bankruptcy relief on January 13, 2017 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

In addition, ATopTech filed a motion to sell its businesses under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code and has selected a stalking horse bidder. The Debtor expects that the sale will be completed by March 31, 2017.

American Apparel, the struggling clothing manufacturer and retailer, found itself in chapter 11 this past November after failing to implement its turnaround plan amid a challenging retail environment. Last week, Judge Shannon in the District of Delaware approved a largely consensual sale of American Apparel’s assets to Gildan Activewear. While the hearing transcript is not yet available, several sources are reporting that, when discussing next steps in the case, Judge Shannon indicated that he is not likely to entertain a structured dismissal.

Judge Carey in the District of Delaware recently ruled on an intriguing question—can a defendant in a preference action reduce the amount of a recoverable preference by setting off the value of an allowed administrative expense claim?. Though not late-breaking news, this case provides a thorough examination of the essential character of administrative expense claims.

On December 2, 2016, Limitless Mobile, LLC (“Limitless” or the “Debtor”) filed a chapter 11 voluntary petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The Debtor was formed in 2013 to provide broadband and wireless telecommunication services in certain rural counties in central Pennsylvania. The Debtor is part of a worldwide corporate family referred to as the Limitless Group. According to the First Day Declaration, Limitless intends to wind down its retail-side business and emerge from bankruptcy as a wholesale operator.

In In re Abeinsa Holding, Inc., 2016 BL 335099 (Bankr. D. Del. Oct. 6, 2016), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware addressed what it perceived to be a flaw in the approach that many courts apply to motions for relief from the automatic stay.

On November 15, 2016, Texas-based Xtera Communications, Inc. and seven of its affiliates filed voluntary petitions for chapter 11 bankruptcy relief in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Case No: 16-12577). XTERA is a leading provider of high-capacity, cost-efficient optical transport solutions that it sells to telecommunications service providers.

On August 29, 2016, the Third Circuit released a precedential opinion (the “Opinion”) which opined that a “[redemption] premium, meant to give the lenders the interest yield they expect, [does not] fall away because the full principal amount is now due and the noteholders are barred from rescinding the acceleration of debt.” The Third Circuit’s Opinion is available here. This Opinion was issued in an appeal from a decision made in the Energy Future Holdings Bankruptcy Case No. 14-10979.