Introduction & Key Takeaways

The year 2024 ended with some major legal fireworks, as two important courts issued contrasting New Year’s Eve decisions on the validity of “uptier” liability management transactions that have played a large role in corporate debt restructurings for the past several years.

On December 31, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued its long awaited opinion in the disputes arising from the controversial “uptier” transaction executed by Serta Simmons Bedding, L.L.C. (“Serta”) in 2020 and the confirmation of Serta’s chapter 11 plan by the Southern District of Texas Bankruptcy Court in 2023. The Fifth Circuit reversed former Bankruptcy Judge David Jones’ summary judgment ruling that the 2020 uptier transaction was permissible under Serta’s existing credit agreements.

The intersection of state escrow laws and federal bankruptcy laws can create confusion and surprise for contracting parties.

The Problem & Four Examples

The problem creating such confusion and surprise is this. State escrow laws:

• are, typically, defined by the common law;
• lack precise details; and
• are often applied in bankruptcy to the detriment of the party who believes a valid escrow exists.

Here are four examples of the escrow / bankruptcy problem.

Overview: The Fifth Circuit’s highly anticipated decision on December 31, 2024, in the Serta Simmons case has significant implications for borrowers and lenders in financial distress situations. The issue on appeal concerned an uptier transaction, a liability management exercise sometimes referred to as “lender-on-lender violence.” The Fifth Circuit’s opinion addresses the contractual viability of uptier transactions and the enforceability of related indemnities in bankruptcy plans, potentially reshaping the landscape for future financial restructurings.

Two-years prospective relief from the automatic bankruptcy stay is a remedy granted for serial bankruptcy filings, under § 362(d)(4)(B), in In re Karpuleon, Case No. 24-80647 in Central Illinois Bankruptcy Court (entered 12/6/2024; Doc. 48).

Facts

Here’s what happened.

Debtor files a Chapter 13 petition on August 22, 2024—this is Debtor’s fourth such petition in the past four years.

Written by - Thomas H. Curran, Thomas H. Curran Associates

The opinion is Samson v. The LCF Group, Inc. (In re Bridger Steele, Inc.), Adv. No. 2:24-ap-2003 in the Montana Bankruptcy Court (decided September 30, 2024; Doc. 10).

Background

Debtor is a fabricator and seller of metal roofing and siding products.

報載曾為全球第二大的加密貨幣交易所FTX於2022年11月聲請美國破產法第11章破產重組，其破產重組計畫終於在2024年10月獲得美國德拉瓦州破產法院法官核准。受益於加密貨幣價值的大幅提升及美國國稅局同意減少稅捐債權之數額，FTX的用戶可獲得以破產當時加密貨幣的美元計價之賠償，若以此計算，大部分的用戶均可取回全額賠償及部分利息。

雖然仍有用戶認為加密貨幣現在之價值遠高於FTX破產時的價值，若無法返還用戶原本持有之加密貨幣，根本不算是全額賠償。但無論如何，在破產程序中債權人能獲得全額賠償及部分利息，是相當少見的狀況。

■美為讓債務人重獲新生，對稅捐債權保障可有所退讓

In Harrington v Purdue Pharma,¹ the United States Supreme Court held that so-called “non-consensual third-party releases” were not permitted in restructuring plans proposed under Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code. A “third-party release” arises where creditors are asked to vote on a restructuring plan or scheme which not only proposes to release the debtor company (i.e. the company that has petitioned for bankruptcy or is proposing the scheme) from all liability but to also release other third parties from any associated liability.

Introduction