In a recent decision, In re Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., No. 18-10518 (KG) (Bankr. D. Del. Nov. 13, 2018), Judge Kevin Gross of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held that the mutuality requirement of section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code must be strictly construed, declining to find mutuality in a triangular setoff between the debtor, a parent entity that owed the debtor money, and that entity’s subsidiary, which was a creditor.

During this mostly quiet week in restructuring, most of us are either away on vacation (think beach or ski) or home for the holidays, maybe back in our hometowns. For me, it’s always the latter, and home for the holidays is Virginia Beach, Virginia, where I sit while I write this blog post (alas, not the beach vacation some of you may be enjoying; my relatives live about 20 minutes from the beach and the high temperature this time of year is usually in the 40s).

In Judge Glenn’s recent lengthy decision recognizing and enforcing a restructuring plan in the chapter 15 proceedings of In re Agrokor1, a Croatian company in Croatian insolvency proceedings, he highlighted that the concept of comity – respect for rulings in other countries – remains an important U.S.

If you were to walk down Fifth Avenue and see a store displaying a white apple suspended in a large glass case, more likely than not you would immediately think of the California-based tech giant who shares its name with the nutritious snack. Similarly, if the person walking in front of you on your way to the Apple store lifted her heel to reveal a candy-apple red shoe sole, more likely than not the name Christian Louboutin would pop into your head.

In a recent decision, the Fifth Circuit narrowly held that federal law does not prevent a bona fide shareholder from exercising its voting right in the company’s charter to prevent the filing by the company of a bankruptcy petition merely because it is also an unsecured creditor. In re Franchise Servs. of N. Am., Inc., 891 F.3d 198, 203 (5th Cir. 2018).

It’s been an interesting couple of weeks for bankruptcy at the United States Supreme Court with two bankruptcy-related decisions released in back-to-back weeks. Last week, the Supreme Court issued an important decision delineating the scope of section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code (discussed here [1] for those who missed it).

This is an extract from Financier Worldwide's August online publication entitled "Pension challenges in bankruptcy and restructuring processes."

REFLECTING ON THE LAST FEW YEARS, HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE OVERALL PENSION CHALLENGES ARISING FOR COMPANIES FACING BANKRUPTCY / INSOLVENCY AND RESTRUCTURING PROCESS? WHAT MAJOR TRENDS HAVE DEFINED THIS SPACE?

BACKGROUND

Halcrow Group Limited (HGL) and Halcrow Water Services Limited (together Halcrow), two subsidiaries of Halcrow Holdings Limited (HHL), were the sponsoring employers with legal responsibility for funding the Halcrow Pension Scheme (HPS).

Despite the initial glee of the prospect of a United States that was independent of Middle East oil, beginning in the fourth quarter of 2014, the price of oil started dropping precipitously.  As noted in a recent article, over 80 bankruptcies in the oil industry were filed in 2015, up 471 % over calendar year 2014.  

Around 33,000 UK-based pensioners of the Nortel group  look set to receive a greater share of the group’s $7bn worldwide assets, following a joint allocation hearing in the US and Canadian courts. This should mitigate earlier difficulties encountered in trying to use the Pensions Regulator’s anti- avoidance powers to recover monies from non-UK companies.

The decision may also have wider implications for unsecured lenders to a company which is part of a multi-jurisdictional group headquartered in the US or Canada.

WHAT WAS THE BACKGROUND TO THIS?