Introduction

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.

OVERVIEW

What have we been up to?

The days and nights may well be getting noticeably cooler, but as a team we remain very much at simmer point in terms of the demands of newlyacquired business support and insolvency work and staying on top of recent legislative changes.

Amongst this month's work highlights have been:

In an important decision issued at the end of August, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in In re Tribune Co., Case No. 18-2909 (3d Cir. Aug. 26, 2020), held that subordination agreements need not be strictly enforced when confirming a chapter 11 plan pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code’s cramdown provision in section 1129(b)(1). In its decision, the Third Circuit also encouraged bankruptcy courts to apply “a more flexible unfair-discrimination standard” and set forth eight guiding principles to aid in that effort.

As we discussed in our July newsletter, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA 2020) has introduced a new Restructuring Plan, which is similar to existing Schemes of Arrangement. In essence a Court can sanction a restructuring plan which binds a dissenting class   of creditors, if that class would be in no worse a position than the most likely alternative.

This was an application by the administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) Ltd for a direction under paragraph 63 of Schedule B1 IA86 that they be at liberty to consent to a request from the company’s directors to distribute surplus funds to the company’s sole shareholder.

The Court has granted one of the first Winding Up Orders under CIGA 2020.

The winding up petition had been issued on 1 May 2020, 8 weeks before CIGA 2020 came in to force, but after 27 April 2020, the date from which CIGA 2020 applies retrospectively. As a result, the petitioner could not have ensured that the winding up petition satisfied the requirements of CIGA 2020, as those requirements were not in existence at the time that the petition was presented.

The liquidators of a subsidiary company had submitted a proof in the CVA of the parent company. The proof was based upon a claim under section 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA86) that  certain payments by the parent to the subsidiary had amounted to unlawful preferences of the company. The liquidators appealed against the decision by the supervisor of the CVA to reject that proof.