On February 27, 2018, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split regarding the proper application of the safe harbor set forth in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, a provision that prohibits the avoidance of a transfer if the transfer was made in connection with a securities contract and made by or to (or for the benefit of) certain qualified entities, including a financial institution.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that section 1129(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Code – a provision which, in effect, prohibits confirmation of a plan unless the plan has been accepted by at least one impaired class of claims – applies on “per plan” rather than a “per debtor” basis, even when the plan at issue covers multiple debtors. In re Transwest Resort Properties, Inc., 2018 WL 615431 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2018). The Court is the first circuit court to address the issue.

Key Points

• A binding contract by exchange of email did not arise where parties were simply exploring a potential deal.

• Sale by auction is often appropriate where an asset is difficult to value.

• Where no differential treatment of creditors, unfair harm requires that a decision does not withstand logical analysis.

The Facts

Investors may, for reasons outside of their control, find themselves with a financially distressed company in their portfolio and possibly in unfamiliar territory. Consequently, it is not just those investors who actively seek out opportunities within the distressed space who should be mindful of the implications of insolvency processes (most commonly administration which can often also be used as part of a wider restructuring).

Key points

• Failure to comply with sections 333 and 363 of the Insolvency Act constitutes contempt of court for which a committal order may be obtained.

• A trustee in bankruptcy should not usually require permission to apply for a committal order.

• Correct procedure for application confirmed by the court.

Key points

• Information obtained by compulsion can be shared between officeholders of connected estates (parent/subsidiary)

• There must, however, be a possibility that there will be a surplus in the subsidiary estate

• The prospect must be real as opposed to fanciful

The facts

Key points

• Court reiterated circumstances in which it will sanction a proposed course of action by administrators

• Requirement that the course of action be “particularly momentous”

• Court sanctioned proposed settlement in the circumstances

The Facts

Some six years after the United States Supreme Court decided Stern v. Marshall, courts continue to grapple with the decision’s meaning and how much it curtails the exercise of bankruptcy court jurisdiction.[1] The U.S.

Key Points

Key Points

• Floating charge is valid even where there are no unencumbered assets at the time it is taken
• Crystallisation of prior ranking floating charge does not impact enforceability of second ranking floating charge

The Facts