On Jan. 17, 2017, in a closely watched dispute surrounding Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its long-anticipated decision in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Finance Corp. (the “Decision”).[1] In a 2-1 ruling reversing the District Court,[2] the Court of Appeals construed Section 316(b) narrowly, holding that it only prohibits “non-consensual amendments to an indenture’s core payment terms” and does not protect noteholders’ practical ability to receive payment.[3]
A debtor’s pre-bankruptcy repurchase of its stock for $150 million was not a fraudulent transfer because the debtor “could have sold off enough of its assets or alternatively obtained sufficient credit to continue its business for the foreseeable future,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on June 15, 2016. In re Adelphia Communications Corp., 2016 WL3315847, *2 (2d Cir. June 15, 2016). Affirming the lower courts, the Second Circuit stressed that “the issue of adequate capitalization,” the “sole issue presented on appeal ...
An unsecured creditor had “adequately alleged a de facto merger” between a corporate defendant and a purported asset acquiror, held the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York when refusing to dismiss the defendants’ “alter ego and de facto merger claims.” John Deere Shared Services Inc. v. Success Apparel LLC, 2015 WL 6656932, at *5-7 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2015) (Furman, J.).
The claim of an insider lender (“L”) who invested “in a venture with substantial risk” and who loaned it additional funds on a secured basis to salvage its business should not be recharacterized as equity or subordinated on equitable grounds, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on June 12, 2015. In re Alternate Fuels, Inc., 2015 WL 3635366 (10th Cir. June 12, 2015) (2-1) (“AFI”).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, on Sept. 26, 2014, held that a U.S. bankruptcy court was required to conduct a full review of a foreign debtor’s sale of property “within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States,” relying on the “plain” language of Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) Section 1520(a)(2) (“section 363 … [applies] … to a transfer of … property that is within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States to the same extent that the section … would apply to property of … an estate.”). In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd., 2014 WL 4783370, *4-5 (2d Cir.
Setoff provisions are commonly found in a variety of trading related agreements between hedge funds and their dealer counterparties. Last November, Judge Christopher Sontchi of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held that “triangular setoff” is not enforceable in the context of a bankruptcy case.[1] “Triangular setoff” is a contractual right of setoff that permits one party (“Party One”) to net and set off contractual claims of Party One and its affiliated entities against another party (“Party Two”).
The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) for the Eighth Circuit held on March 25, 2013, that a lender “lost its possessory lien when it turned the Debtor’s account funds over to the Trustee without first seeking adequate protection.” In re WEB2B Payment Solutions, Inc., _____ B.R. 2013 _____, 2013WL 1188041, *5 (8th Cir. B.A.P. March 25, 2013) (emphasis added).
Revised Bankruptcy Rule 2019, which governs disclosure requirements for groups and committees in Chapter 9 and 11 bankruptcy cases, went into effect on Dec. 1, 2011. The following is a summary of a few key facets of the new rule.
Who?
Reorganization or debtor-in-possession (“DIP”) financing has become an increasing source of litigation.
In a Jan. 20, 2010, opinion, Judge Christopher S. Sontchi of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held that a group of investors who had together proposed a plan of reorganization for the debtor did not have to comply with the disclosure requirements of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2019 (“Rule 2019”) In re Premier International Holdings, Inc., No. 09-12019 (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 20, 2010) (Sontchi, J.) (“Six Flags”). In Six Flags, Judge Sontchi expressly disagreed with two prior decisions on the subject of Rule 2019 disclosure, one by Judge Mary K.