Overview

Introduction

Non-consensual third-party releases are provisions in reorganization plans that release non-debtor parties from liability to other non-debtor parties without the consent of all potential claimholders. These releases are frequently included in chapter 11 plans of reorganization. Most circuit courts allow these releases under certain circumstances; however, there is a split among circuit courts as to whether such non-consensual third-party releases are permitted by the Bankruptcy Code.

As the economy continues to face challenges and the threat of bankruptcy becomes more prevalent among businesses, landlords must be more vigilant in protecting their interests in commercial leases. One area of particular concern is leases that fall under Section 467 of the Internal Revenue Code (“Section 467 Leases”).

The U.K. government has published its much-anticipated proposals for regulating the cryptoasset industry. These proposals, currently in the form of a consultation, will see many (but not all) cryptoasset-related activities being brought within the regulatory perimeter for financial services in the U.K.

On October 12, the Honorable Robert D. Drain, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge for the Southern District of New York, issued his final decision from the bench in the bankruptcy cases of supermarket chain Tops Holdings II Corporation (“Tops”). The decision came in an adversary proceeding seeking to avoid four dividend payments totaling $375 million from 2009–2013 paid to the Tops’ private equity investors (the “PE Group”) as constructive and actual fraudulent transfers and also hold the director-defendants responsible for breaching their fiduciary duties.

Last month, Judge Caproni of the Southern District of New York issued a ruling stating that if a commercial lease does not require a landlord to hold a security deposit in trust and if there is no state statute generally requiring landlords to do so, the security deposit may not be recoverable by the tenant when the landlord files for bankruptcy. See 10FN Inc. v. Cerberus Business Finance LLC, 21-5996 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2022).

Over the past decade there has been an influx of small- and medium-sized entrants to the U.K. gas supplier market, which is supervised by Great Britain's[1] independent energy regulator, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem).[2] According to Ofgem, this market development had the effect of increasing price competition and putting pressure on incumbent suppliers to improve customer service for consumers.[3]

On October 17, 2022, Justice Andrea Masley of the NY Supreme Court issued a decision and order denying all but one of the motion to dismiss claims filed by Boardriders, Oaktree Capital (an equity holder, term lender, and “Sponsor” under the credit agreement), and an ad hoc group of lenders (the “Participating Lenders”) that participated in an “uptiering” transaction that included new money investments and roll-ups of existing term loan debt into new priming debt that would sit at the top of the company’s capital structure.

On October 14, 2022, the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in Ultra Petroleum, granting favorable outcomes to “unimpaired” creditors that challenged the company’s plan of reorganization and argued for payment (i) of a ~$200 million make-whole and (ii) post-petition interest at the contractual rate, not the Federal Judgment Rate. At issue on appeal was the Chapter 11 plan proposed by the “massively solvent” debtors—Ultra Petroleum Corp. (HoldCo) and its affiliates, including subsidiary Ultra Resources, Inc.

UK Supreme Court gives important judgment on directors’ “creditor duty”

The UK Supreme Court in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and ors [2022] UKSC 25[1] has given an important judgment clarifying the nature of the so-called “creditor duty.”  The “creditor duty” is an aspect of the fiduciary duty of directors to act in the interests of their company which requires the directors to take into account the interests of creditors in an insolvency, or borderline insolvency, context.