July 7 - Members and Subscribers - Welcome to the new and improved abi.org! - If you have not already done so, please reset your ABI password to access the site. Click "Login" and then "Forgot Password"
A Feb. 27, 2018, decision by the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a split in the circuit courts by clarifying that a bankruptcy trustee, creditors’ committee or other entity with standing may claw back preferences and constructive fraudulent transfers involving the purchase of securities, even though the transaction was effectuated by depositing funds or securities with financial institutions. The Court’s decision in Merit Management Group LP v.
The permanent release of a nondebtor from a debt owed to a third party in a chapter 11 plan is barred per se in some courts and must meet a high standard to be allowed in others. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado in In re Midway Gold US Inc. addressed this issue in connection with confirmation of the joint chapter 11 plan of 14 debtor entities in the gold mining and exploration business.[1]
The issue of nonconsensual third-party releases in chapter 11 plans continues to generate litigation. Releases and corresponding injunctions frequently insulate nondebtors — such as directors, officers or parent entities — from claims asserted by other nondebtors. Litigation regarding third-party releases has also involved jurisdictional issues, including those addressed in Stern v. Marshall.[1] In March 2017, the U.S.
Bankruptcy courts “generally presume that good chapter 11 lawyers can and should negotiate without the help of an outside mediator.” However, some Chapter 11 cases are “so inherently complex” or “riddled” with “high levels of distrust” that “the presiding judge (or more rarely, the parties) views the appointment of a plan mediator as a virtual necessity from the outset.”[i]
On Sept. 22, 2017, the First Circuit issued a decision[1] holding that the official unsecured creditors’ committee (UCC) appointed in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s[2] Title III debt-adjustment case[3] has an unrestricted right to intervene in an associated adversary proceeding (AP).
