As a general rule, bankruptcy courts do not enforce provisions in organizational documents, loan agreements, or other prepetition contracts that purport to alter or waive the protections of the Bankruptcy Code. As with most rules, however, there are exceptions.

On September 26, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, overturning decisions by the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court for the Southern District of New York, held that the Bankruptcy Court was required to review under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code the transfer of a claim by a chapter 15 debtor with a recognized foreign main proceeding pending in the British Virgin Islands (the “BVI”).1     In a case under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code in which a foreign main proceeding has been recognized, section 1520(a)(2) of the Bankr

Generally, the priority scheme in section 507 of the Bankruptcy Code dictates the order in which a creditor is paid.

Regardless of whether a creditor has a claim identified in a debtor’s schedules of assets and liabilities, generally speaking, most attorneys representing creditors in the context of a chapter 11 case will advise their clients to file a formal proof of claim with the bankruptcy court.  Often this is just “belts and suspenders” and a matter of good practice but, if nothing else, a formal proof of claim will serve to protect a creditor’s rights and interests vis à vis the estate.

On September 9, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that certain senior lenders were not entitled to the benefit of their indentures’ make-whole premiums, because they had voluntarily accelerated their notes.  As we have reminded our readers several times, careful drafting of what may seem like basic boilerplate provisions is important.  Seemingly benign stand-alone provisions may have unintended consequences when linked together in a single agreement.

“That ain’t right. Baby, that ain’t right at all.”

– Nat King Cole

A "structured dismissal" of a chapter 11 case following a sale of substantially all of the debtor's assets has become increasingly common as a way to minimize cost and maximize creditor recoveries. However, only a handful of rulings have been issued on the subject, perhaps because bankruptcy courts are unclear as to whether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes the remedy. A Texas bankruptcy court recently added to this slim body of jurisprudence. InIn re Buffet Partners, L.P., 2014 BL 207602 (Bankr. N.D. Tex.

In a recent decision from the Delaware bankruptcy court, Judge Christopher S. Sontchi joined the debate over the interpretation of section 547(c)(4)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code, which sets forth the new value defense to a preference claim. 

Introduction

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, on Sept. 26, 2014, held that a U.S. bankruptcy court was required to conduct a full review of a foreign debtor’s sale of property “within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States,” relying on the “plain” language of Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) Section 1520(a)(2) (“section 363 … [applies] … to a transfer of … property that is within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States to the same extent that the section … would apply to property of … an estate.”). In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd., 2014 WL 4783370, *4-5 (2d Cir.