European Insolvency Regulation

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.

Daycare company Estro was declared bankrupt in July 2014, but the undertaking was relaunched immediately, as the relaunch was prepared in a ‘pre-pack’ insolvency. All 3600 employees of the bankrupt company were dismissed by the administrator. About 2600 employees were immediately employed again by the relaunched company, which company was a so called ‘connected party’ as the shareholder also held a substantial part of the shares of Estro.

The Dutch shrimp factory Heiploeg was declared bankrupt in November 2014. The undertaking was relaunched immediately, as the relaunch was prepared in a ‘pre-pack’ construction. All 180 employees of the bankrupt company were dismissed by the administrator. 120 employees were immediately employed again by the relaunched company, but on different employment conditions.