Under Section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor or trustee can sell estate assets “free and clear of any interest” in such assets. This short, simple string of six words represents one of the most powerful tools in the bankruptcy professional’s arsenal.
On June 14, 2016, Judge Thuma of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico issued a memorandum opinion holding that a debtor could reject a prepetition settlement agreement that was determined to be executory in nature.
Court Looks to the Knowledge of the Transferees in Madoff
Until recently, In re Atari, Inc. was a closed case, but, in a recent decision, the bankruptcy court for the Southern District of New York found that “other cause” existed to reopen the bankruptcy cases.
Background
Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code acts as the Bankruptcy Code’s equitable backstop, empowering bankruptcy courts to “issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out [its] provisions” and to, “sua sponte, take[e] any action or mak[e] any determination necessary or appropriate to enforce or implement court orders or rules, or to prevent an abuse of process.” Does section 105(a), though, authorize
On February 8, 2016 we reported on the decision of Judge Walrath of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in
Bond restructurings Implementation mechanisms: schemes vs. exchange offers December 2015 ■ a principal haircut; ■ extended maturity; and / or ■ a change in coupon (rate and/or whether the coupon is cash-pay or PIK). Exchange offers are based entirely on voluntary participation. They can only succeed if a critical mass of bondholders agrees to participate. A “carrot and stick” approach is used to incentivise participation and penalise holdouts. For background on the use of schemes of arrangement as restructuring tools, see here.
A recent decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York may make it easier for debtors to obtain some relief from preferential payments to a foreign entity, even if the recipient of the transfer has no address in the United States.
Whether an insurer can refuse to provide coverage on the grounds that the bankrupt insured has not paid a self-insured retention (SIR) is often litigated during a bankruptcy case. Recently, in Sturgill v.