Bankruptcy and class actions each establish elaborate procedures and provide a convenient forum to resolve numerous claims against one or more defendants, in an efficient manner. However, while a class action focuses on providing adequate representation to claimants with similar claims, bankruptcy focuses on enabling an insolvent company to reorganize. The two goals do not necessarily blend well in every circumstance.

The Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”) became effective on February 19, 2020, after being enacted by Congress at blazing speed.  Indeed, the legislation was first introduced into the House of Representatives on June 18, 2019, was received by the Senate on July 24, 2019 and was signed by the President on August 23, 2019.  The SBRA is intended to help small businesses restructure their debts in bankruptcy more effectively.

In Whirlpool Corporation v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al. (In re hhgregg, Inc.), No. 18-3363 (7th Cir. Feb. 11, 2020), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (“BAPCPA“) created a federal priority rule rendering a secured lender’s first-priority, floating liens on inventory superior to the reclamation claims of a trade vendor. The facts in the case are typical, and the holding does not mark a demonstrative shift in common practice.

Facts

The Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA“) is in effect as of yesterday, February 19, 2020. The SBRA was enacted to provide smaller business debtors with a more streamlined path to restructuring their debts. Below are some highlights of the new law.

Absolute-Priority Rule

It is almost 30 years since the commencement of the Companies (Amendment) Act 1990 (the “1990 Act”) which introduced the concept of Court protection for certain companies from their creditors to allow a formal restructure of a company’s debt. The examinership process is now governed by Part 10 of the Companies Act 2014 which mirrors the procedure provided for in the 1990 Act.   

Examinership process  

In LNV Corporation v. Ad Hoc Group of Second Lien Creditors (In re La Paloma Generating Company, LLC, Adv. Pro. No 19-50110 (JTD) (D. Del. January 13, 2020), a Delaware bankruptcy court recently held that actions taken by a senior secured creditor to enforce its rights under an intercreditor agreement did not constitute a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealings owed to the junior lienholders. The circumstances in La Paloma are not uncommon.

Background

The laws of preferential and fraudulent transfers under the Bankruptcy Code can often seem theoretical and formulaic. When certain boxes are checked, it appears, at first blush, that a pre-bankruptcy transfer can be avoided, regardless of any intent or surrounding circumstances.

In MicroBilt Corporation v. Ranger Specialty Income Fund, L.P. et al. (In re Princeton AlternativeIncome Fund,LP), Case No. 3:18-CV-16557 (D.N.J. Nov. 27, 2019), the District Court for the District of New Jersey recently affirmed a bankruptcy court's decision to appoint a chapter 11 trustee, without conducting a traditional evidentiary hearing.  The holding reinforces that a bankruptcy court has broad discretion to grant extreme remedies in a case.

Facts

The High Court recently considered an application by creditors for directions calling upon a liquidator to reconsider advice he had provided in a report to the ODCE and to carry out further and more forensic investigation into the circumstances which led to the liquidation of the company.

Background

When a company is unable to pay its debts as they fall due, a director’s duties shift from the management of the company for the benefit of the shareholders, to ensuring the company’s creditors are not disadvantaged by the company continuing to trade.

The directors should seek and comply with professional advice from their auditors and solicitors regarding any decision to continue trading for an interim period.