Overview
On 12 May 2021, the High Court sanctioned three inter-conditional restructuring plans, under the Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006, for certain English subsidiaries of the Virgin Active group, despite major opposition of certain landlords.[1] In the landmark decision, the High Court exercised its discretion to cram-down multiple classes of dissenting landlords in each plan, compromising their claims.
Executive Summary
On March 15, 2021, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Third Circuit”) held that a stalking horse bidder may assert an administrative expense claim pursuant to section 503(b)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code for costs incurred in attempting to close on an unsuccessful transaction, even when the stalking horse bidder is not entitled to a breakup or termination fee.
STOP RIGHT NOW, THANK YOU VERY MUCH – I NEED SOME TIME FOR A RESCUE.
THE PART A1 MORATORIUM
The moratorium is an insolvency process introduced by the Corporate Insolvency Governance Act 2020. It allows a financially distressed company to obtain temporary protection from creditor action, while the company attempts to rescue itself as a going concern. It is a debtor-in-possession process, overseen by a monitor—an insolvency practitioner.
Who can use it?
While there has been much fuss over the recent ruling by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in In re Nine West LBO Securities Litigation1 due to its potential ramifications for director liability, as we explored in Part I of our series on this case here, court watchers have paid less attention to the court’s treatment of officer liability and the interes
The UK’s reformed restructuring regime shows its force with the first successful cross-class cram-down following the introduction of the new restructuring plan. A quick legal update on the key features of the restructuring plan and the analysis of the recent cases can be found in the infographic below.
Contributors to this update were Howard Morris, Amrit Khosa, Jai Mudhar, Joe Donaghey, and Haania Amir.
A recent ruling from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York sent shock waves through the legal and financial community, with some shouting that this “could be a gamestopper for the private equity business.”1 Although the ruling in In re Nine West LBO Securities Litigation2 breaks new ground and arguably narrows the protections available to directors under the normally-broad business judgment rule, there are clear lessons others can take from this saga to prevent a similar fate.
Executive Summary
A recent decision from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, In re Care Ctrs., LLC, No. 18-33967, 2020 Bankr. LEXIS 3205 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Nov. 12, 2020), examined (1) the scope of bankruptcy court subject-matter jurisdiction for post-confirmation actions filed in state court and removed to bankruptcy court; and (2) when the court must or should abstain and remand a proceeding back to the court where the action was originally brought.