On June 6, 2023, the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (the “Court”) confirmed Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC’s (“Serta”) Chapter 11 plan and held that Serta’s 2020 uptiering transaction (the “Uptiering Transaction”) did not breach Serta’s 2016 first lien credit agreement (the “Credit Agreement”).

On May 30, 2023, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit released its long-awaited opinion addressing Purdue Pharma’s confirmed chapter 11 bankruptcy plan. Although the appeal challenged more than one aspect of the plan, the Court’s decision was highly anticipated for its discussion of one topic in particular: nonconsensual third-party releases.

In Depth

THIRD-PARTY RELEASES

Exculpation clauses limiting the liability of certain entities for actions taken in connection with a bankruptcy case are a common feature of chapter 11 plans. However, courts disagree over the permitted scope of such clauses. They also disagree as to whether an order confirming a chapter 11 plan that includes exculpation and third-party release provisions is insulated from appellate review under the doctrine of "equitable mootness."

In an anticipated decision, on May 30, 2023, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision approving a Chapter 11 plan’s inclusion of a nonconsensual release of direct claims against non-debtor third parties. Purdue Pharma LP v. City of Grand Prairie (In re Purdue Pharma LP), No. 22-110 (2d Cir. May 30, 2023).

The ruling, which held that the transaction did not violate the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, highlights the importance of carefully drafting lending documents.

On June 6, 2023, Judge David Jones of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (the Bankruptcy Court) held that the 2020 Serta Simmons "uptier" transaction (the Transaction) was permitted under Serta's existing 2016 credit agreement (the Credit Agreement), a decision that could have broad implications for the permissibility of such transactions.1

Feasibility of a bankruptcy plan is always a tough issue.

Think about it:

• debtors are in bankruptcy because they can’t make their payments when due; and
• in bankruptcy, a debtor must propose a plan for paying creditors—that will work this time.

We now have a new plan feasibility opinion—from the Eighth Circuit BAP—that provides guidance to us all.

Investing in or acquiring distressed assets can be a lucrative investment strategy for those with a healthy risk appetite and a roadmap for sourcing and evaluating quality assets.

Following a steep run-up in crypto asset prices and valuations of crypto-adjacent businesses in the last two years, there has been a sharp increase in companies and assets in the space looking at deeply distressed valuations, liquidity crunches or formal insolvency or bankruptcy proceedings.

Overview

Make-whole clauses (also known as prepayment premiums, call premiums or call protection) are provisions in financing transactions that require the borrower to make a specified payment to the lender if a loan is prepaid before the scheduled maturity. This payment is typically made by the borrower as a lump sum upon early termination and is designed to compensate the lender for the loss of the anticipated yield that lenders expect when providing (or committing to provide) the financing over a specified term.

On May 8, 2023, online cryptocurrency exchange platform Bittrex, Inc. and three of its affiliated entities (collectively “Bittrex”) filed for chapter 11 to wind down their U.S. and long-dormant Malta operations. The bankruptcy filing followed costly regulatory investigations and an April 17, 2023 SEC enforcement action alleging that Bittrex improperly sold crypto assets that were securities. Unlike other crypto bankruptcies, Bittrex did not risk, hypothecate, or loan cryptocurrencies needed to meet its contractual obligations to its customers.