Delaware’s Court of Chancery has no subject matter jurisdiction over an assignment for benefit of creditors proceeding when the debtor/assignor is an Illinois corporation with no assets or operations in Delaware, even when its ABC assignee/trustee is from Delaware.
That’s the decision of Delaware’s Court of Chancery in In re Vernon Hills Serv. Co., 2024 Del. Ch., C.A. No. 2021-0783 (issued March 28, 2024).
Facts
As we previously reported in Royalty Rights as Unsecured Claims: The Relevance of Mallinckrodt to M&A, Revenue or Royalty Interest Financings, and Other Transactions Involving Future Payment Streams, a decision arising out of the Mallinckrodt plc bankruptcy cases
On April 23, 2024, the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Subchapter V Task Force issued its Final Report.
This article is the second in a series summarizing and condensing the Task Force’s Final Report into “a nutshell.” The subject of this article is:
- whether future rents should be included in the debt cap calculation for Subchapter V eligibility.[Fn. 1]
Recommendation
Third Circuit Finds Future Royalty Obligations From Sale Transaction Dischargeable in Bankruptcy
The Third Circuit ruled that the obligations are prepetition "contingent and unliquidated" claims that can be discharged in a bankruptcy.
There is a lesson for all debtor attorneys in the Chapter 7 case of In re Aquilino.[Fn. 1]
The moral of the In re Aquilino story is this:
- a little carelessness in describing and disclosing bankruptcy fees in a Chapter 7 case can create big problems.
Fee Agreements & Disclosures
Here is the winding path of fee agreement descriptions and disclosures, between the Debtors and their attorneys, in the In re Aquilino Chapter 7 case:
Insurers with unwanted runoff blocks of business should consider the latest guidance from insurance regulators on potential transactional structures that could mitigate this issue.
Borrower beware: in times of distress, your credit documents may give your secured lenders an opportunity to “flip” control of your board
Distress happens, even at companies that once appeared financially solid. When it does, the company, its board (which may be controlled by a sponsor in a public or private equity scenario), and its lenders often enter into restructuring discussions in search of a consensual path forward, typically under the terms of a forbearance agreement.
On April 23, 2024, the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Subchapter V Task Force issued its Final Report.
This article is the third in a series summarizing and condensing the Task Force’s Final Report into “a nutshell.” The subject in this article is:
- whether debtor’s attorney can be compensated for services performed after removal of debtor from possession. [Fn. 1]
Task Force Proposal
Pursuant to Section 341 of Title 11 of the U.S. Code (the Bankruptcy Code), the U.S. Trustee is required to convene and preside over a meeting of the creditors of a debtor (the 341 Meeting). The purpose of the 341 Meeting is to examine the debtor's financial position and to confirm facts stated by the debtor in the bankruptcy filing. While creditors are not required to attend the 341 Meeting, creditors have an opportunity to examine the debtor and ask questions related to the debtor's financials and the bankruptcy case.
Press reports are crowded with headlines about the rise in commercial bankruptcy filings, which increased yet again this year.1 High interest rates, inflation, delayed effects of COVID, and huge corporate debt contributed to the jump in corporate insolvency filings. More are anticipated.