The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently issued an opinion that could mean that directors and officers of insolvent entities face liability for damages caused by the failure to timely file for bankruptcy protection.

In a case of first impression, DLA Piper argued before the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware that a consent provision in a Delaware LLC operating agreement effectively granting a creditor a veto right over a debtor’s decision to file for bankruptcy was void because it was contrary to federal public policy.

The US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York has issued a ruling in a chapter 11 case that could have a significant  impact on future restructurings in the oil and gas industry.

On March 8, 2016,  in the case of Sabine Oil and Gas Corp., Judge Shelley Chapman ruled that Sabine could reject certain pipeline and gas gathering agreements with two midstream gathering pipeline companies.

An opinion issued in connection with the bankruptcy cases of Lyondell Chemical Company and its affiliates may have significant implications for shareholders who receive payments in connection with a leveraged buyout when the underlying company subsequently files for bankruptcy. 

In its recent decision Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 137 S. Ct. 973 (2017), the United States Supreme Court held that a bankruptcy court may not approve a structured dismissal of a chapter 11 case that provides for distributions that fail to follow the standard priority rules, unless the affected creditors consent to such treatment.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently dismissed an appeal from “the sale of legal claims” as “statutorily moot” under Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) § 363(m) because the appellants “had not obtained a stay” of the effectiveness of the sale order pending appeal. In re Pursuit Capital Mgmt., LLC, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 20889 (3d Cir. Oct. 24, 2017). According to the court, “we cannot give [the appellants] the remedy they seek without affecting the validity of the sale.” Id., at *37.

Relevance

Bankruptcy courts may hear state law disputes “when the parties knowingly and voluntarily consent,” held the U.S. Supreme Court on May 26, 2015. Wellness Int’l Network Ltd. v. Sharif, 2015 WL 2456619, at *3 (May 26, 2015). That consent, moreover, need not be express, reasoned the Court. Id. at *9 (“Nothing in the Constitution requires that consent to adjudication by a bankruptcy court be express.”). Reversing the U.S.

The Ninth Circuit held on April 30, 2013 that a bankruptcy court “has the authority to determine whether a transaction creates a debt or an equity interest for purposes of [Bankruptcy Code] § 548, and that a transaction creates a debt if it creates a ‘right to payment’ under state law.” In re Fitness Holdings International, Inc., 2013 WL 1800000, *1 (9th Cir. April 30, 2013). The court agreed with five other circuits, but explicitly followed the reasoning of the Fifth Circuit’s recent In re Lothian Oil, Inc. decision. 650 F.3d 539, 543-44 (5th Cir.

CURRENTLY, NEGOTIATION and documentation of claims trades remain largely unregulated, with only limited oversight from bankruptcy courts and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Generally, the bankruptcy court’s, or the claims agent’s, involvement in claims trading is ministerial, i.e., maintaining the claims register and recording transfers if the form complies with the rule. Only if there is an objection to a claims transfer does the bankruptcy court become involved in the substance of a transfer.

In a Jan. 20, 2010, opinion, Judge Christopher S. Sontchi of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held that a group of investors who had together proposed a plan of reorganization for the debtor did not have to comply with the disclosure requirements of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2019 (“Rule 2019”) In re Premier International Holdings, Inc., No. 09-12019 (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 20, 2010) (Sontchi, J.) (“Six Flags”). In Six Flags, Judge Sontchi expressly disagreed with two prior decisions on the subject of Rule 2019 disclosure, one by Judge Mary K.