In Michigan, the general rule is that only a real party in interest may initiate a lawsuit. MCR 2.201(B). Although it is usually easy to identify the proper party (or parties), it becomes harder if a would-be plaintiff files for bankruptcy protection before initiating the lawsuit. A recent decision by the Michigan Court of Appeals illustrates the difficulty, and highlights how important it is to pay attention to the debtor’s bankruptcy schedules.
Credit bidding is a mechanism, enshrined in the US bankruptcy legislation, whereby a secured creditor can ‘bid’ the amount of its secured debt, as consideration for the purchase of the assets over which it holds security. In effect, it allows the secured creditor to offset the secured debt as payment for the assets and to take ownership of those assets without necessarily having to pay any cash for the purchase. Whilst there is no statutory equivalent in the UK, the process has evolved here into an accepted practice.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently issued an opinion that calls into question the long-held Barton doctrine following the dismissal of a bankruptcy case and thus the jurisdiction of that court. In Tufts v. Hay, No. 19-11496 --- F.3d ----, 2020 WL 6144563 (11th Cir. Oct. 20, 2020), the court considered where a litigant may bring suit against counsel appointed by a bankruptcy court after the bankruptcy case was dismissed.
As a result of the economic fallout of COVID-19, more bankruptcies are on the horizon, especially as government aid programs expire and involuntary or voluntary moratoriums on creditor action come to an end. [1] Creditors should be aware and prepared to avoid potential claims for alleged violation of the discharge injunction under the Bankruptcy Code and related orders.
October Bankruptcy Developments
After almost eighth months of dealing with the severe economic impact of COVID-19, it is not surprising that more and more businesses are turning to bankruptcy for relief. Commercial filings continue to rise as many government-backed programs expire and the lasting effects of COVID-19 take hold. For many corporate counsel, interactions with bankruptcy may be limited, but how you respond to a vendor, supplier, or customer bankruptcy after a filing can have a significant impact on your company’s ability to mitigate its losses and avoid liability.
In the latest saga concerning “covenants running with the land” and the rejection of midstream gathering agreements under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code (the Code), the Honorable Christopher Sontchi, Chief Judge of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court (the Court), issued three1 decisions holding that certain of Extraction Oil & Gas, Inc.’s (Extraction) gathering agreements with its midstream service providers did not create real property interests and, thus, that Extraction could reject such gathering agreements in its chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.
In December of last year, we wrote about the Fifth Circuit’s two decisions – Ultra I, from January 2019, and Ultra II, from December, which replaced Ultra I – regarding make-whole claims in the Ultra Petroleum bankruptcy cases. That blog post provides important background for this one. You can find it here.
In a victory for minority noteholders opposing an out-of-court restructuring of their distressed issuer, New York's highest court ruled last week that a holder's right to receive or sue for payment on its notes survived an exercise of statutory remedies by the trustee, conducted at the direction of a noteholder majority, that would have cancelled the holder's notes without its consent and replaced them with equity securities.