On October 3, 2017, Bankruptcy Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued a decision holding that the Bankruptcy Court had constitutional authority to approve third-party releases in a final order confirming a plan of reorganization.
The Court of Appeal in Harvey v Dunbar Assets plc [2017] EWCA Civ 60 has confirmed that parties cannot re-litigate failed arguments that have previously been presented in bankruptcy proceedings.
This will be welcome news for creditors in situations where debtors rehearse the same arguments at several stages of the bankruptcy process in an attempt to deter enforcement by driving up legal costs and drawing out proceedings.
The facts
In less than a week after its bankruptcy filing, a debtor was able to obtain confirmation of its prepackaged plan of reorganization in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. In allowing the case to be confirmed on a compressed timeframe that was unprecedented for cases filed in the Southern District of New York, the Bankruptcy Court held that the 28-day notice period for confirmation of a chapter 11 plan could run coextensively with the period under which creditor votes on the plan were solicited prior to the commencement of the bankruptcy case.
Parties in the construction sector seeking to enforce an adjudicator’s decision against a
company with the benefit of a statutory moratorium were given fresh guidance in the recent case of South Coast Construction Ltd v Iverson Road Ltd [2017] EWHC 61.
Facts
In September 2013 Iverson Road Ltd (“Iverson”) engaged South Coast Construction Ltd (“SCC”) to complete various building works in London. In June 2016 SCC halted the work for non-payment of sums due by Iverson.
The law on debt restructurings and liability management is back to where it was. Yesterday, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the controversial District Court decisions in the Marblegate-Education Management bondholder litigation. The case attracted wide-spread attention in financial markets, and we discussed it in an earlier client alert.
The Housing and Planning Act 2016 (the “Act”) introduces special administration procedures for social housing associations which aim to protect the level of social housing in the UK. The new housing administration orders (“HAOs”) create an additional objective for insolvency practitioners to try to keep social housing in the regulated housing sector to maintain levels of social housing.
Consumers could be set to jump up the insolvency hierarchy if Parliament backs the latest Law Commission recommendations.
The Law Commission’s report, Consumer Prepayments on Retailer Insolvency, recommends, among other things, that consumers who prepay for goods or services over £250 in the six months prior to a formal insolvency process should be paid out as preferential creditors instead of unsecured creditors.
In a June 3, 2016 decision1 , the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (“the Bankruptcy Court”) invalidated, on federal public policy grounds, a provision in the debtorLLC’s operating agreement that it viewed as hindering the LLC’s right to file for bankruptcy. Such provision provided that the consent of all members of the LLC, including a creditor holding a so-called “golden share” received pursuant to a forbearance agreement, was required for the debtor to commence a voluntary bankruptcy case.
During contract negotiations parties usually agree what law and which courts will determine any disputes arising from that contract. This brings certainty for the parties. However that certainty can vanish if one party is a foreign registered company and becomes insolvent – the other party may suddenly become exposed to unexpected foreign insolvency law. At this point, the drafting of a jurisdiction clause can be worth millions.
This is the situation in the recent case of Global Maritime Investments Cyprus Limited v O.W. Supply & Trading A/S [2015] EWHC 2690 (Comm).
In its recently issued decision in Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz, a 7-1 majority of the Supreme Court has clarified that intentionally fraudulent transfers designed to hinder or defraud creditors can fall within the definition of “actual fraud” under Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code and can sometimes result in corresponding liabilities being non-dischargeable in a personal bankruptcy proceeding.1