Delaware Bankruptcy Insider:
Be In The Know

About This Blog


The Delaware Bankruptcy Insider is a premier blog designed to bring its readers a comprehensive analysis of the latest Delaware corporate bankruptcy news and rulings.  Brought to you by Ashby & Geddes, P.A.

Get Updates By Email

Topics

Judges and Courts

View All
View less

Recent Posts

HELPFUL LINKS

For more information


Karen B. Skomorucha Owens, Esq.
(302) 504-3725
kowens@ashbygeddes.com

Ashby & Geddes, P.A.
500 Delaware Avenue
P.O. Box 1150
Wilmington, Delaware 19899-1150
(302) 654-1888               

Third Circuit Upholds Bankruptcy Court’s Reconsideration Order Described by Dissent as “Troubling – If Not Dangerous – Precedent”

NextEra Energy, Inc. v. Elliott Associates, L.P. (In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.), No. 18-1109, 2018 WL 4354741 (3d Cir. Sept. 13, 2018), aff’g sub nom. 575 B.R. 616 (Bankr. D. Del. 2017)

In this precedential Opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the “Third Circuit”) upheld the decision of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court reconsidering, and thereby denying, a previously approved $275 million termination fee (the “Termination Fee”) to a potential purchaser (NextEra Energy, Inc. (“NextEra”)) in the chapter 11 bankruptcy cases of Energy Future Holdings Corp. and its affiliated debtors (the “Debtors”). … Read More

Delaware District Court Affirms Confirmation Order Approving Horizontal Gift Providing Disparate Treatment to Separate Classes of General Unsecured Claims

Hargreaves v. Nuverra Envtl. Solutions, Inc. (In re Nuverra Envtl. Solutions, Inc.), No. 17-1024 (RGA), 2018 WL 3991471 (D. Del. Aug. 21, 2018)

In this Opinion, the Delaware District Court (the “District Court”) dismissed an appeal of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court’s order confirming the plan of reorganization (the “Plan”) of Nuverra Environmental Solutions, Inc. and its affiliated debtors (the “Debtors”).  While the appeal was dismissed on the basis of equitable mootness, the District Court took an extra step and affirmed the entry of the confirmation order.  In doing so, the District Court addressed the propriety of “horizontal… Read More

Practice Pointers – When Faced With A Dispute Over a Court Order, Seek Court Intervention Sooner Rather Than Later or Face Civil Contempt Sanctions

In re Washington Mutual, Inc., No. 08-12229 (MFW), 2018 WL 704361 (Bankr. D. Del. Feb. 2, 2018)

In this Opinion, Judge Walrath of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court imposed sanctions against the Washington Mutual Liquidating Trust (the “Liquidating Trust”) for its failure to comply with the Court’s final fee order (“Final Fee Order”) that awarded, among other things, a contingency fee (the “Contingency Fee”) to Grant Thornton, LLP (“Grant Thornton”) in connection with certain tax related work it provided postpetition to the Liquidating Trust.

Prepetition, Washington Mutual engaged Grant Thornton to develop a theory to challenge the constitutionality of… Read More

Anti-Assignment Clauses Enforced to Void and Nullify Claims Purchases

In re Woodbridge Group of Cos., LLC, No. 17-12560 (KJC), 2018 WL 3131127 (Bankr. D. Del. June 20, 2018)

Prior to the commencement of the Woodbridge chapter 11 bankruptcy cases, one of the many debtors (“Woodbridge”) issued three promissory notes, each containing an anti-assignment clause.  The clause prohibited the lenders from assigning the notes, the related loan agreements, and any other instruments executed in connection therewith absent the written consent of Woodbridge.  If a non-consensual assignment was attempted, the provision provided that the assignment would be null and void.  Similar language existed in the related loan agreements… Read More

Practice Pointers: Bankruptcy Court Lacks Authority to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 and A Post-Petition Action Satisfies “Is Commenced” Element for Purposes of Mandatory Abstention

Troisio v. Erickson (In re IMMC Corp.), No. 15-1043 (GMS), 2018 WL 259941 (D. Del. Jan. 2, 2018)

In this Opinion from the Delaware District Court, Judge Sleet affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s decision denying a liquidating trustee’s motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 to transfer an adversary proceeding to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Relying on plain statutory language, the District Court found that the Bankruptcy Court lacked transfer authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 – which limits transfer power to only the courts listed in section 610 – because… Read More

Bankruptcy Court Determines Issue of First Impression – Holds That Recovery Under Section 550 is Not Capped by The Amount of Creditor Claims

PAH Litigation Trust v. Water Street Healthcare Partners, L.P. (In re Physiotherapy Holdings, Inc.), Adv. Proc. No. 15-51238 (KG), 2017 WL 5054308 (Bankr. D. Del. Nov. 1, 2017)

On cross-motions for partial summary judgment, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court was confronted with a complex issue of first impression in the Third Circuit – whether damages in a fraudulent transfer action are capped to permit creditors to receive only the amount of their claims. Competing interests made the decision difficult.  On the one hand, there are numerous decisions outside of the Third Circuit holding that there is no cap… Read More

Judge Silverstein Tosses Bad Faith Filing in Rent-A-Wreck of America But Doesn’t Award Sanctions – Finds That a Filing to Employ the Powers of the Code is Alone Insufficient to Support Good Faith

In re Rent-A-Wreck of America, Inc., 580 B.R. 364 (Bankr. D. Del. 2018)

In this February 13, 2018 Opinion, Judge Silverstein of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court dismissed the voluntary chapter 11 proceedings filed by Rent-A-Wreck of America, Inc. (“RAWA”) and its wholly owned subsidiary, Bundy American, LLC (“Bundy”, and together with RAWA, the “Debtors”).  Judge Silverstein found that the Debtors did not file their petitions in good faith as required by 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b).  While the Court found that the Debtors’ actions in commencing the cases fell “on the dark side of the spectrum” which ranges… Read More

Security Interest Determined as of the Date of Petition, Not the Transaction, for Purposes of Stating a Preference Claim Under Section 547(b)(5)

Simplexity, LLC v. Sprint Corp. (In re Simplexity, LLC), 578 B.R. 255 (Bankr. D. Del. 2017)

In this Opinion, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court addressed when a security interest is determined for purposes of stating a preference claim under section 547(b)(5) of the Bankruptcy Code.  Distinguishing an earlier ruling by the Court in the context of insurance premium financing, Judge Kevin Gross ruled that security interests generally must be determined as of the petition date rather than the transaction date.  Judge Gross also set forth guidelines for how the valuation should be conducted using an “add back” method.

Under… Read More