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.
As we continue to work with clients regarding the Bank of England’s statement as to its intention to apply to place Silicon Valley Bank UK Limited (SVB UK) into a bank insolvency procedure, please see below for responses to some frequently asked questions surrounding the current situation. Please note that this list covers general topics related to rapidly changing circumstances.
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.
The UK Government has announced today that temporary measures to protect businesses in distress introduced in response to the Covid-19 pandemic through the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 will be lifted from 1 October 2021.
New measures intended to protect small businesses as the economy reopens, particularly in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors, are to be introduced, with effect until 31 March 2022.
In June 2020, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (the “CIGA”) introduced a new procedure to the restructuring toolkit in England & Wales, the Part 26A restructuring plan (the “Plan”, see further detail on CIGA in our article here). The Plan is similar to the well-tested English law scheme of arrangement (the “Scheme”), and the English courts have so far relied on the wealth of Scheme case law to guide them in deciding whether to sanction a Plan.
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.
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