In its recent German Pellets decision, the Fifth Circuit held that a creditor could not assert its indemnification defenses in a suit brought by the trustee of a liquidation trust because the Chapter 11 plan’s express language permanently enjoined the defenses and the creditor chose not to participate in the debtor’s bankruptcy despite having actual knowledge of it.
Parties structuring certain financial transactions to comply with the Bankruptcy Code safe harbor provisions, including protections from the avoidance powers in Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code,1 must be cognizant of recent case law prescribing the identity of counterparties within the ambit of the provisions.
Conventional wisdom suggests there is no requirement that a debtor be “insolvent” to file a case under Chapter 11 or any other chapter of the Bankruptcy Code. No Code provision explicitly imposes such a requirement. Yet in 2023, several courts addressed the issue, and two courts directed the dismissal of massive Chapter 11 cases imposing what may fairly be characterized as an insolvency requirement.
Creditors face many risks when a company files for bankruptcy. One such risk is preference exposure, which is where the company seeks to claw back funds paid to a creditor before the company files for bankruptcy. A general overview of preferences in bankruptcy can be found here.
As a wise man is wont to say, “Where you stand depends on where you sit.”
This statement applies with full force to the recent, related opinions from Judge Marvin Isgur of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, addressing the effects of a so-called “uptier” liability management transaction.1
Procedurally, Judge Isgur’s rulings denied in part and granted in part motions for summary judgment, permitting certain claims to proceed to trial beginning on January 25, 2024.
As the Maryland legislative session begins to heat up, we have been tracking several bills that would impact financial services providers. One bill of interest is House Bill 254, titled: Commercial Law – Credit Regulation – Predatory Loan Prevention (True Lender Act).
Here’s a due process question that’s percolating before the U.S. Supreme Court and a related mediation issue:
This is the fourth in a series of four articles on why Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9031, titled “Masters Not Authorized,” needs to be amended to authorize the utilization of special masters in complex bankruptcy cases.
The focus of this fourth article is on how federal courts have inherent authority to appoint special masters—and why that inherent authority should not be denied in bankruptcy cases.[Fn. 1]
Inherent Authority of Courts of Equity
In the March 2024 edition of the Restructuring Department Bulletin, we highlight recent decisions and developments impacting the restructuring arena and share the latest news on the Paul, Weiss Restructuring Department.
The transition to online shopping, interest rate increases, labor costs, maturing debt and rising inflation have collectively taken a significant toll on the retail industry, contributing to store closures and a growing number of bankruptcy filings by retail companies in recent years. Nearly 30 retailers sought bankruptcy protection in 2023. Some retailers have even filed for bankruptcy twice.