Fulltext Search
ASHINC or Swim Case Study: Lessons for Private Equity Sponsors on Distressed Portfolio Company Risks (Part I: Sponsor Breach of Company Loan Agreement)

In an opinion that mostly flew under the radar in 2021, Judge Christopher Sontchi from the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Court”) found a private equity sponsor (the “Sponsor”)1 liable (and, in some cases, not liable) under various contractual and tort theories in connection with actions the Sponsor took or did not take in its failed efforts to stave off a potential bankruptcy filing of its portfolio company, Allied Systems Holdings, Inc., now known as ASHINC Corporation (“Allied” or the “Company

USA, Company & Commercial, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Private equity, Fourth Amendment
Arbitrate? You Can’t Make Me! Rejection Trumps Arbitration, Says Texas Bankruptcy Court

Overview

USA, Arbitration & ADR, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Federal Arbitration Act 1926 (USA)
The Third Circuit Lets the Katz Out of the Bag: No Sovereign Immunity for California in the Post-Confirmation Venoco Dispute

The Executive Summary provided a short version of the facts. The next few paragraphs provide a longer version, or you can skip to the next section.

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, European Commission, Supreme Court of the United States
Prepetition Claim or Postpetition Claim? The Timing of a Claim When A Debtor’s Prepetition Wrongful Actions Continue Postpetition

Executive Summary

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Supreme Court of the United States
Bankruptcy No Sanctuary Against Government Enforcement Actions: NRA’s Chapter 11 Case Dismissed as Bad Faith Filing

Executive Summary

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Corporate governance
A Reminder That a 9019 Motion Is Not a Slam Dunk: Bankruptcy Court Denies 9019 Motion After Determining That Approving Certain Findings Required By Settlement Would Amount to Inappropriate Advisory Opinion

Introduction

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Bankruptcy
The Aftermath of a Complicated Breakup: Third Circuit Holds Stalking Horse Bidder in Terminated Transaction May Assert Potential Administrative Expense Claim Notwithstanding Disallowance of Its Termination Fee

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.

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Due diligence
Officers of Selling Companies May Escape Fiduciary Duty Liability But May Be Required to Return Change of Control Payments if Company is Insolvent Post-Closing (Nine West Part 2)

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

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Private equity, Due diligence
Thou Shall Not Interfere With Special Purpose Entities’ Contractual Obligations

A recent decision of the New York Court of Appeals, Sutton v. Pilevsky held that federal bankruptcy law does not preempt state law tortious interference claims against non-debtors who participated in a scheme that caused a debtor—in this case a bankruptcy remote special purpose entity—to breach contractual obligations intended to ensure that the entity remains a Special Purpose Entity (SPE) and to facilitate the lenders’ enforcement of remedies upon a future bankruptcy filing, if any.

USA, New York, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Dechert LLP
Thou Shall Not Interfere With Special Purpose Entities’ Contractual Obligations

A recent decision of the New York Court of Appeals, Sutton v. Pilevsky held that federal bankruptcy law does not preempt state law tortious interference claims against non-debtors who participated in a scheme that caused a debtor—in this case a bankruptcy remote special purpose entity—to breach contractual obligations intended to ensure that the entity remains a Special Purpose Entity (SPE) and to facilitate the lenders’ enforcement of remedies upon a future bankruptcy filing, if any.

USA, New York, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Dechert LLP