In In re Cook, 2014 Bankr. LEXIS 67 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. Jan.

A bankruptcy judge in the Southern District of New York recently held that section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code does not prevent a debtor’s creditors from bringing state-law fraudulent conveyance actions that challenge a leveraged buyout of the debtor. Weisfelner v. Fund 1 (In re Lyondell Chem. Co.), No. 10-4609 (REG), --- B.R. ----, 2014 WL 118036 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2014).

The biggest trend in Chapter 11 bankruptcies over the past 10 years is to sell assets through a “Section 363 sale,” named for Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code, which describes the standards for sales in bankruptcy court.   Previously, in most Chapter 11 cases, the debtor would propose a Chapter 11 plan.   In successful cases, the Chapter 11 plan would be approved by creditors and by the court.   If a debtor was selling substantially all of its assets, the sale would be part of the Chapter 11 plan.

When Fisker filed bankruptcy in November, it planned to sell its assets to Hybrid Tech, the acquirer of Fisker’s $168.5 million loan from the Department of Energy, by way of credit bid.  Before the sale (requiring the approval of the Bankruptcy Court) was consummated, another potential acquirer, Wanxiang Group Corp.,  emerged.  Wanxiang originally offered $27.5 million in cash and subsequently increased its offer.

In a departure from other bankruptcy courts in the Third Circuit and her own recent prior opinion, U.S. Bankruptcy Chief Judge Mary France of the Middle District of Pennsylvania broadly interpreted the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 2 (2011), and held that a bankruptcy court lacks the constitutional authority to issue a final judgment in any fraudulent transfer action where the defendant (i) has not filed a proof of claim and (ii) has not consented to the bankruptcy judge entering a final judgment on the matter. 

On January 10, 2014, a Bankruptcy Court Judge issued a strongly-worded, 65-page opinion that exposes a “startling pattern of misrepresentation” by some plaintiffs’ attorneys in asbestos litigation.  He concluded that the “withholding of exposure evidence by plaintiffs and their lawyers was significant and had the effect of unfairly inflating” recoveries.   In re GarlockSealing Techs., No. 10-31607, at 35, 37 (Jan. 10, 2014, Bankr. W.D.N.C.). 

CASE SNAPSHOT

When does the life of a Delaware corporation end? Not as long as there are third-party claimants with claims to assert and undistributed assets available to satisfy them. In Anderson v. Krafft-Murphy, No. 85, 2013 (Del. Nov. 26, 2013), asbestos tort claimants in lawsuits pending in other jurisdictions against Krafft-Murphy Co., a dissolved Delaware corporation, sought the appointment of a receiver to enable them to lawfully pursue their claims against the corporation in those other courts beyond the statutory three-year winding-up period.

The Bankruptcy Code provides debtors in possession and other potential plan proponents with considerable flexibility to implement a plan under chapter 11. An important consideration is the preservation of potentially valuable causes of action held by the estate and the provision of a vehicle for post-confirmation prosecution of such claims.

Energy production in the United States is at an all-time high. In 2013, an average of 7.5 million barrels of oil were pumped every day, which bested the previous production record (2012) by one million barrels. Domestic oil production has increased every year from 2011 to 2013. By comparison, between 1971 and 2011, oil production in the United States decreased 29 of the 40 years. Regardless of whether this level of domestic production can be sustained for the long term, elevated domestic oil production is a reality for the near future.