For the past decade, shipping companies in every sector have faced continuing challenges from, among other things, declining demand, low charter rates, and an oversupply of new and more modern vessels. These factors have eroded second-hand vessel values and caused financial distress and insolvency for many shipping companies, requiring out of court financial restructurings and, in some cases, U.S. bankruptcy filings.

Accept an unpalatable offer, or reject it and risk getting much less (or even nothing)? This is the choice stakeholders in chapter 11 bankruptcies increasingly face as a result of the proliferation of “deathtrap” provisions in plans of reorganization. For example, a class of bondholders may be forced to decide between accepting 60 cents on the dollar if they vote to accept a plan, or 40 cents if they reject. A class of equityholders may have to decide between accepting equity warrants, or rejecting and getting nothing.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in an opinion authored by Judge Thomas Ambro, has reversed two district court opinions and refused to allow a company to use a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing as a means to reduce interest on its debt obligations. Specifically, the court held that filing for bankruptcy would not excuse a debtor from its obligation for a “make-whole” payment otherwise due to its lenders.

On August 29, 2016, the Third Circuit released a precedential opinion (the “Opinion”) which opined that a “[redemption] premium, meant to give the lenders the interest yield they expect, [does not] fall away because the full principal amount is now due and the noteholders are barred from rescinding the acceleration of debt.” The Third Circuit’s Opinion is available here. This Opinion was issued in an appeal from a decision made in the Energy Future Holdings Bankruptcy Case No. 14-10979.

What does it mean to “cure” a default in the context of a plan of reorganization? This question arises by virtue of section 1123(a)(5)(G) of the Bankruptcy Code, which requires that a plan provide adequate means for the plan’s implementation, including the “curing or waiving of any default.” On November 4, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals defined what it means to “cure” by holding that a debtor can only cure a contractual default under a plan of reorganization by complying with contractual post-default interest rate provisions.

Circuit held that when a chapter 11 debtor cures a default under its loan agreements, the debtor is required to pay default interest as required by the loan documents, rather than at the non-default rate.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that if a creditor wishes to participate in the distribution of a debtor’s assets under Chapter 13, it must timely file a proof of claim, and the debtor’s acknowledgment of the debt owed to the creditor does not relieve the creditor of this affirmative duty.

A copy of the opinion is available at: Link to Opinion.

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 11, 2016)

The bankruptcy court grants summary judgment in favor of the trustee in this declaratory judgment action, in which the plaintiff sought a judgment that certain health insurance proceeds were not property of the estate. The plaintiff argued that the debtor had assigned the proceeds to it prior to the bankruptcy, but the court holds that the evidence presented did not establish such assignment. The debtor’s spouse had signed the document for him, but the debtor’s spouse did not have the requisite agency authority to do so. Opinion below.

(6th Cir. B.A.P. Nov. 7, 2016)

In a lengthy opinion published November 7, 2016, Judge Sontchi of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court provided a thorough analysis of the interaction between the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”) and the Bankruptcy Code. Judge Sontchi’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”). The Opinion was issued in the Chapter 15 case In re Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited, Case No. 13-12159.