Most corporate bankruptcy filings result in either a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (the Code) or a liquidation under Chapter 7 of the Code. Sometimes, however, neither option is viable and the debtor may need to seek a “structured dismissal” in accordance with Section 349 of the Code. Structured dismissals provide administratively insolvent debtors with a framework to distribute the estate’s remaining assets (without the additional cost of a Chapter 7 liquidation), wind down the estate, and obtain final dismissal of the case.
The authors of this guest essay, Evelyn Fletcher Davis and William T. Wood, III are partners in the Atlanta office of Hawkins Parnell & Young, LLP, where their practices focus on asbestos litigation defense.
On June 7, 2021, Katerra Inc., a Scottsdale, AZ-based “technology-enabled construction company,” filed a petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (Case No. 21-31861) along with several affiliates. The company estimates $500 million to $1 billion in assets and $1 billion to $10 billion in liabilities.
Subordination agreements are generally enforced in accordance with applicable non-bankruptcy law in bankruptcy cases. The decision in In re Fencepost Productions, Inc., No. 19-41542, 2021 WL 1259691 (Bankr. D. Kan. Mar. 31, 2021) recognizes limits to this rule. While the subject subordination agreements were generally enforceable, the assignment of Chapter 11 voting rights in such agreements was not.
In Dr. Thomas Markusic et al. v. Michael Blum et al. memorandum opinion 200818, the Delaware Chancery Court (the “Court”) declined to extend the Gentile doctrine. In so doing, the Court held that the counterclaims attempting to rely on it had to be dismissed.
Michael Traison Chicago/NYC – 312.860.4230
Michael Kwiatkowski Garden City – 516.296.9144
A creditor in bankruptcy must normally file a proof of claim by a certain specified time, known as the bar date, or have its claim be barred.
The Third Circuit recently held, in a case from the Energy Future Holdings bankruptcy, that a losing stalking horse bidder can provide sufficient value to the debtor’s estate to receive an administrative claim for a break-up fee and expenses. In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., 990 F.3d 728, 748 (3rd Cir. 2021). This represents an expansive view of potential administrative claims related to those costs, providing bidders significant potential protections for their bids.
The NCLAT, in its recent decision in Union of India v.Vijaykumar V Iyer,[1] has arguably created a new class of creditors, not previously known to the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’).
On May 31, 2021, Houston, Texas-based OFS International, LLC, also known as OFSi, a privately held company which provides a full complement of services required to supply oil country tubular goods for the oil and gas industry, along with affiliates, filed a petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (Case No. 21-31784).