To successfully reorganize in Chapter 11, a bankrupt company may need to retain key employees who understand the company’s business and who can design and implement the company’s reorganization plan. Retaining and properly incentivizing these employees during a Chapter 11 case can be challenging for a number of reasons.
Judges Kevin Carey and Mary Walrath of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued opinions in In re Tribune Co.1 and In re JER/Jameson Mezz Borrower II, LLC2, respectively, that shake up the landscape for restructuring real estate investments with multiple layers of debt.
Between 2008 and 2010, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (the Second Circuit) revisited the circumstances under which it would approve third-party non-debtor releases in Chapter 11 plans of reorganization. Traditionally, the Second Circuit found such releases to be appropriate if the bankruptcy case had certain special — “unique” — circumstances.1 InIn re Johns-Manville Corp., 517 F.3d 52 (2d. Cir.
Senior Transeastern Lenders v. Official Comm. Of Unsecured Creditors of TOUSA, Inc. (In re TOUSA, Inc.), 2012 US App. LEXIS 9796 (11th Cir. May 15, 2012)
On April 26, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States adopted amendments to Rule 2019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (Amended Rule 2019) and submitted the proposed amendment to Congress for approval. Amended Rule 2019 was approved by Congress and became effective on December 1, 2011. The rule governs certain disclosure requirements for groups consisting of multiple creditors or equity security holders acting in concert in Chapter 9 or Chapter 11 cases.
When entering into secured transactions, most secured lenders long assumed that, even in a bankruptcy, their borrowers would not be able to sell encumbered assets free and clear of the lenders’ liens without the lenders’ consent or, without at least providing the lenders the opportunity to bid their secured debt at an auction.
On June 23, 2011, the US Supreme Court issued a narrowly-divided decision in Stern v. Marshall, limiting Bankruptcy Court jurisdiction over certain types of claims. The Court found that while the Bankruptcy Court was statutorily authorized to enter final judgment on a tortious interference counterclaim (as a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(C)), it was not constitutionally authorized to do so.
Recently, several courts have added to the growing body of decisions construing intercreditor agreements in bankruptcy cases.
3V Capital Master Fund LTD. v. Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of TOUSA, Inc. (In re TOUSA, Inc.), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14019 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2011).
The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded an Oregon bankruptcy court’s order designating recently acquired claims of a secured creditor for bad faith, holding that a bad faith finding requires “something more.” Specifically, the Court found that a bankruptcy court may not designate claims for bad faith simply because (1) a creditor offers to purchase only a subset of available claims in order to block a plan of reorganization, and/or (2) blocking the plan will adversely impact the remaining creditors.Pacific Western Bank, et al. v.