The Virgin Airlines insolvency has shed new light upon aircraft repossession procedure under the Cape Town Convention.
In Wells Fargo Trust Company, National Association (trustee) v VB Leaseco Pty Ltd (administrators appointed) [2020] FCA 1269 (3 September 2020), Justice Middleton in the Federal Court of Australia, decided two issues:
The Small Business Administration (SBA) has consistently applied its traditional small business lending qualification criteria to Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans — likely because the CARES Act grafted the PPP onto the SBA’s Section 7(a) loan program. But the CARES Act also contemplated that the purpose of the PPP was different from traditional SBA lending programs; the PPP is part economic stimulus and part inducement for businesses to continue to pay employees, landlords and banks notwithstanding the fear that COVID-19 would bring them economic hardship.
On August 26, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed Delaware Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Carey’s order confirming the Tribune Company’s chapter 11 plan.1 As a matter of first impression, the Court held that the prohibition against “unfair discrimination” in cramdown plans supplants the requirement that subordination agreements be enforced in bankruptcy. The decision comes more than eight years after Judge Carey initially entered the Bankruptcy Court order, and follows years of appeals by the senior noteholders.
In this series, we look at how various payment rights are treated in bankruptcy. A summary like this could not possibly address every right that might arise in any given bankruptcy case. We have omitted several of the Bankruptcy Code’s more esoteric legal protections and exceptions that arise in specific kinds of bankruptcy cases. When bankruptcy strikes, creditors should always consult a bankruptcy lawyer to understand what actions they need to take to preserve their rights and maximize their recovery.
The Basic Concept of a “Claim”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently confirmed that bankruptcy plans need not always recognize subordination agreements among creditors.
Australia and the United States have much in common. We have a shared history, a common language, and a similar common law-based legal system governing a federated nation occupying a large land mass blessed with abundant natural and human resources. The United States is one of Australia’s greatest trading partners, and we welcome inward investment from the U.S. with most favoured nation trade terms. We also enjoy a friendship and strategic alliance that goes back over a century.
On August 31, 2020, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado’s holding that certain student loans not guaranteed by a governmental unit may be discharged in bankruptcy.
“Unfair discrimination is rough justice.
On August 11, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed lower court decisions rejecting Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc.’s (“LBSF”) attempt to recover nearly $1 billion in payments to noteholders and enforcing certain Priority Provisions (defined below) that subordinated payments otherwise payable to LBSF under related swap transactions.
Recently, in In re Tribune Company, the Third Circuit affirmed that the Bankruptcy Code means exactly what it says and that the enforcement of subordination agreements can be abridged when cramming down confirmation of a chapter 11 plan over a rejecting class entitled to the benefit of the subordination agreement, so long as doing so does not “unfairly discriminate” against the rejecting class (and the other requirements for a cramdown are satisfied).