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.
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.
BTI 2014 LLC (Appellant) v Sequana SA and Others (Respondents)
Summary
The UK Supreme Court has, for the first time, considered the existence, content and engagement of an obligation on directors to take into account the interests of creditors when a company becomes, or is on the cusp of becoming, insolvent (otherwise known as the “creditor duty”).
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.
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 Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (the “Act”) received Royal Assent on 25 June 2020 and is now in force. As anticipated in our client alert of 26 May 2020, the Act represents the most extensive changes in the insolvency landscape since the Enterprise Act came into force in 2003.
The provisions of the Act contain both:
The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the “Bill”) was laid before Parliament on 20 May 2020 and represents the most extensive changes in the insolvency landscape since the Enterprise Act came into force in 2003. Many of the proposals were originally consulted on in 2016, but were not progressed in light of Brexit until the COVID-19 crisis led to an urgent need for rapid and responsive reforms. The Bill is expected to come into force in June at the earliest.
The provisions of the Bill contain both:
On December 19, 2019, the Second Circuit held that appellants’ state law constructive fraudulent transfer claims were preempted by virtue of the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbors that exempt transfers made in connection with a contract for the purchase, sale or loan of a security from being clawed back into the bankruptcy estate for