Background – As Things Currently Stand

The aim of EC Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings 2000 (the Regulation) is to improve the efficiency of insolvency proceedings with cross-border implications. It provides, within the EU, rules for determining:

Background

As things currently stand

The aim of the EC Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings (1346/2000) (Regulation) is to improve the efficiency of insolvency proceedings with cross border aspects. It provides, within the European Union (EU), rules for determining:

In Ritchie Capital Mgmt., LLC v. Stoebner, 779 F.3d 857 (8th Cir. 2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a bankruptcy court’s decision that transfers of trademark patents were avoidable under section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code and Minnesota state law because they were made with the intent to defraud creditors.

In the latest decision on COMI (Northsea Base Investment Limited & ors [2015] EWHC 121 (Ch)), the English Court had to determine the centre of main interest for a  group of companies registered in Cyprus, but where the operations of the companies were managed by a shipping agent in London.

The UK court recently considered the extent of s236 Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA 1986”) in the case of Re Comet Group Ltd (in liquidation); Khan and others v Whirlpool (UK) Ltd and another [2014] EWHC 3477 (Ch).

Key Points 

• Phones 4U went into administration in September 2014.
• Technology companies in the US have also faced a difficult market.
• Phones 4U’s complicated financing structure contributed to its downfall, as did its reliance on one or two key suppliers.
• The Protection of Essential Supplies Order will have considerable ramifications for tech suppliers when it comes into force.

PHONES 4U COLLAPSE: PART 1

In Re Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration) and others [2014] EWHC 704 (Ch), the High Court ruled on issues regarding the order of distributions and payments in the administration and potential liquidation of various Lehman entities. This wide-ranging judgment gives clarity on a number of previously uncertain issues.

The U.S. Supreme Court in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2012 WL 1912197 (May 29, 2012), held that a debtor may not confirm a chapter 11 "cramdown" plan that provides for the sale of collateral free and clear of existing liens, but does not permit a secured creditor to credit-bid at the sale. The unanimous ruling written by Justice Scalia (with Justice Kennedy recused) resolved a split among the Third, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits.

On December 12, 2011, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in a case raising the question of whether a debtor's chapter 11 plan is confirmable when it proposes an auction sale of a secured creditor's assets free and clear of liens without permitting that creditor to "credit bid" its claims but instead provides the creditor with the "indubitable equivalent" of its secured claim. RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, No. 11-166 (cert. granted Dec. 12, 2011).

Earlier this year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided in In re Lett that objections to a bankruptcy court’s approval of a cram-down chapter 11 plan on the basis of noncompliance with the “absolute priority rule” may be raised for the first time on appeal. The Eleventh Circuit ruled that “[a] bankruptcy court has an independent obligation to ensure that a proposed plan complies with [the] absolute priority rule before ‘cramming’ that plan down upon dissenting creditor classes,” whether or not stakeholders “formally” object on that basis.