In the case of Coughlin v. South Canaan Cellular Investments, LLC, C.A. No. 7202-VCL (Del. Ch. July 6, 2012), Respondents made a request for fee shifting under the bad-faith exception to the American Rule.  In reviewing this fee shifting request, the Court found that Respondents’ request itself was unfounded, and coupled with Respondents’ own conduct in the case, instead awarded Petitioner his fees in costs in the amount of $17,906.

In a recent opinion, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed a secured lender’s right to credit-bid at a bankruptcy sale of assets encumbered by such lender’s liens.  In addition to solidifying the rights and protections afforded to a secured creditor in bankruptcy, the Supreme Court lessened some of the uncertainty associated with the acquisition strategy by which a potential buyer purchases claims secured by the targeted assets of a troubled company and seeks to exercise such secured creditor’s rights as to such assets.

As of August 1st, the legal landscape for receiverships in the State of Minnesota will change dramatically. Receiverships have long been used a remedy for mortgage lenders to preserve commercial property in foreclosure, but a lack of clear guidance under Minnesota law has been problematic for all parties. The Minnesota State Bar Association convened a panel of experienced debtor creditor attorneys to create a new statutory framework, which was eventually passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor this spring. The new receivership statute, codified under Minnesota St

Participants in the multibillion-dollar market for distressed claims and securities have had ample reason to keep a watchful eye on developments in the bankruptcy courts during the last decade. That vigil appeared to have been over five years ago, after a federal district court ruled in the Enron chapter 11 cases that sold claims are generally not subject to equitable subordination or disallowance on the basis of the seller's misconduct or receipt of a voidable transfer. A ruling recently handed down by a Delaware bankruptcy court, however, has reignited the debate.

As the seventh anniversary of the enactment of chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code draws near, the volume of chapter 15 cases commenced in U.S. bankruptcy courts on behalf of foreign debtors has increased rapidly. During that period, there has also (understandably) been a marked uptick in litigation concerning various aspects of the comparatively new legislative regime governing cross-border bankruptcy cases patterned on the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency. One such issue was the subject of a ruling recently handed down by a Texas district court. In In re Vitro, S.A.B. de C.V., 470 B.R.

Section 506(a) of the Bankruptcy Code contemplates bifurcation of a debtor's obligation to a secured creditor into secured and unsecured claims, depending on the value of the collateral securing the debt. The term "value," however, is not defined in the Bankruptcy Code, and bankruptcy courts vary in their approaches to the meaning of the term. In In re Heritage Highgate, Inc., 679 F.3d 132 (3d Cir.

In a recent decision¹ involving Global Aviation Holdings, Inc.

The IRS and Treasury recently proposed regulations that, if finalized, would permit an employer in bankruptcy to amend its defined benefit plan to eliminate certain optional forms of benefit, including lump sum payments.

Earlier today, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland issued a decision vacating maritime attachments of a vessel on the grounds that the attachments were futile in view of the Vessel Owner's bankruptcy proceedings. In Evridiki Navigation v. The Sanko Steamship Co., Ltd., Civil No. JKB-12-1382 (ECF Doc. # 135)(D. Md. Jul. 27, 2012), a vessel had been attached in Baltimore, Maryland, by use of Rule B of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty and Maritime Claims.

In this memorandum opinion, the Court of Chancery held that plaintiff note holders waived their statutory right to seek appointment of a receiver for a debtor corporation where the notes they purchased were subject to clear language in a “No-Action Clause” of the governing indenture, which prohibited such action unless certain requirements were met.