On July 8, 2021, Pipeline Foods, LLC, along with several affiliates, which operate a Minnesota-based organic food supply chain company, filed a petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 21-11002). The company estimates $100 to $500 million in assets and liabilities.

In a recent litigation and appeal involving claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant, in a win for CRAs named in similar litigation. Leoni v. Experian Info. Solutions, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 17687 (9th Cir. June 14. 2021). Read on for details about the case and its implications.

In a recent opinion, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland dealt with a conflict between the strong presumption in favor of enforcing arbitration agreements and the Bankruptcy Code’s emphasis on centralization of claims. Based on an analysis of the two statutory schemes and their underlying policies and concerns, the Court decided to lift the automatic stay to allow the prepetition arbitration proceeding to go forward with respect to non-core claims.

Background

Sounds like an odd combination—enforceability of make-whole and post-petition interest and patent law. It is. But relevant nonetheless. Recall that a key argument in the ongoing Ultra Petroleum dispute regarding the noteholders’ entitlement to make-whole and post-petition interest is the existence of the Solvent Debtor Rule. The Solvent Debtor Rule is a judicially created exception to the prohibition on claims for post-petition interest by unsecured creditors in bankruptcy.

With Hertz emerging from a bankruptcy with a positive result for shareholders, we are reminded of the interplay between the equity markets and the bankruptcy alternative.

Some firms facing financial challenges during the pandemic were able to avoid a bankruptcy filing altogether because of their ability to raise the necessary funds through an equity offering. Hertz provides an example of a situation where the bankruptcy filing instead of wiping out the equity enhanced value.

On July 2, 2021, Something Sweet, Inc., a New Haven, Connecticut-based bakery that “provides high quality pies and cakes to the largest retailers in the country,” filed a petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 21-10993). The company estimates $10 to $50 million in assets and liabilities.

In a previous article, I discussed the potential impacts of a then-forthcoming decision in the case of In re United Cannabis Corporation, which had the potential to widen access to federal bankruptcy relief to cannabis-adjacent hemp businesses.

On 28 June 2021, the English High Court handed down a judgment declining to sanction a restructuring plan proposed by Hurricane Energy PLC, which sought to cram down the dissenting class of shareholders and hand over the control of the company to its bondholders with a debt-for-equity swap diluting the shareholders down to 5% of their existing shareholding. This is the first time that the English court has declined to sanction a restructuring plan (since their introduction almost a year ago in June 2020), and only the fourth time that the cross-class cram down mechanism has been used.

Late on July 6, 2021, MatlinPatterson Global Opportunities Partners II L.P., along with several affiliates, filed a petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Lead Case No. 21-11255).

A recent case before bankruptcy judge Karen B. Owens of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, In re Dura Auto. Sys., LLC, No. 19-12378 (KBO), 2021 WL 2456944 (Bankr. D. Del. June 16, 2021), provides a cautionary reminder that the Third Circuit does not recognize the doctrine of implied assumption (i.e., assumptions implied through a course of conduct as opposed to those that are assumed pursuant to a motion and court order).