Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.
Court approval of a sale process in receivership or Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) proposal proceedings is generally a procedural order and objectors do not have an appeal as of right; they must seek leave and meet a high test in order obtain it. However, in Peakhill Capital Inc. v.
Setting aside a transaction on the basis that it was an extortionate credit transaction under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986 or the “Act”) is difficult. A bargain may be hard or even unreasonable, but that does not make it extortionate. The most important term to any credit transaction is usually the interest rate and that is most likely to be subject to scrutiny when considering whether or not a credit transaction contained grossly exorbitant terms.
On October 17, 2022, Justice Andrea Masley of the NY Supreme Court issued a decision and order denying all but one of the motion to dismiss claims filed by Boardriders, Oaktree Capital (an equity holder, term lender, and “Sponsor” under the credit agreement), and an ad hoc group of lenders (the “Participating Lenders”) that participated in an “uptiering” transaction that included new money investments and roll-ups of existing term loan debt into new priming debt that would sit at the top of the company’s capital structure.
On October 14, 2022, the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in Ultra Petroleum, granting favorable outcomes to “unimpaired” creditors that challenged the company’s plan of reorganization and argued for payment (i) of a ~$200 million make-whole and (ii) post-petition interest at the contractual rate, not the Federal Judgment Rate. At issue on appeal was the Chapter 11 plan proposed by the “massively solvent” debtors—Ultra Petroleum Corp. (HoldCo) and its affiliates, including subsidiary Ultra Resources, Inc.
On July 6, Delaware Bankruptcy Court Judge Craig T. Goldblatt issued a memorandum opinion in the bankruptcy cases of TPC Group, Inc., growing the corpus of recent court decisions tackling “uptiering” and other similar transactions that have been dubbed by some practitioners and investors as “creditor-on-creditor violence.” This topic has been a hot button issue for a few years, playing out in a number of high profile scenarios, from J.Crew and Travelport to Serta Simmons and TriMark, among others.
A recent decision of the Court has confirmed that the recipient of funds from an individual who is subject to a bankruptcy petition can be construed as having provided value where that value is given to a third party (and not to the bankrupt personally).
Roger Elford and Jessica Williams in the Corporate Restructuring and Insolvency team at Charles Russell Speechlys LLP acted for a successful Respondent, Howard de Walden Estates Limited, in these proceedings.
The Background
On August 26, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the Bankruptcy Code does not require subordination agreements to be strictly enforced in order for a court to confirm a cramdown plan, so long as the plan does not discriminate unfairly.
The Government has announced proposals for retrospective changes for the urgent reforms to UK insolvency law, designed to protect companies and their directors during the COVID-19 outbreak.
Wrongful trading
These changes will include a temporary suspension (to the end of June 2020) of section 214 Insolvency Act 1986 in relation to wrongful trading, subject to passage of the upcoming Corporate Insolvency & Governance Bill through Parliament in the coming weeks.
On Saturday 28 March, Secretary of State for the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Alok Sharma, announced a proposal for the urgent reforms to UK insolvency law, designed to protect companies and their directors during the COVID-19 outbreak.
Wrongful Trading (section 214 Insolvency Act 1986)
It was announced that there would be a temporary suspension of section 214 Insolvency Act 1986 in relation to wrongful trading.