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.
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 Government has extended the restrictions in place concerning winding-up petitions and forfeiture of business tenancies until 30 September 2021 and 25 March 2022 respectively.
The extensions will receive a mixed reception, with landlords likely to feel particularly aggrieved at the limitations imposed on their ability to pursue debt (by winding-up petition) in circumstances where the tenant can pay, but won’t pay.
Insolvency practitioners will need to be familiar with three new Statements of Insolvency Practice which were introduced with effect from 1 April 2021.
Companies House temporarily paused their strike off processes in April 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The effect of this was to stay all strike off action. The stay was lifted on 10 October 2020 but stayed for a second time on 21 January 2021.
The second stay was lifted on 8 March 2021 and, absent further significant disruption caused by COVID-19, is unlikely to be subject to a further stay.
In Sarjanda Ltd (in liquidation) v Aluminium Eco Solutions Ltd and another [2021] EWHC 210 (Ch), an application to rescind a winding up order was refused where the application had been made over two years outside of the five-day time limit. That level of delay, allegedly caused by the company negotiating payment of its debts, was not a good enough reason for the breach of the time limit.
Practitioners are likely to be familiar with the provisions of The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“CIGA 2020”) which introduced new permanent measures to complement the insolvency regime as well as a number of temporary measures to support business dealing with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.