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.
Background
On 5 October 2022, the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25 concerning the trigger point at which directors must have regard to the interests of creditors pursuant to s.172(3) of the Companies Act 2006 (the "creditors' interests 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.
Last week saw the government further extend COVID-19 emergency insolvency provisions until 31 March 2021. Since April, these have:
Today, new legislation comes into force* that provides directors of companies in financial difficulty with a second breathing space from the financial impact of the wrongful trading provisions.
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.
An unfortunate but inevitable consequence of the economic downturn induced by COVID-19 is that an increasing number of construction companies will enter into insolvency. In Bresco Electrical Services Ltd (in liquidation) v. Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd [2020] UKSC 25, the Supreme Court has provided some respite to contractors in liquidation by finally confirming their unfettered right to refer construction disputes for resolution by adjudication.
The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 introduces a temporary, retrospective suspension of the directors' personal financial liability for wrongful trading from 1 March 2020 until 30 September 2020. This is not a blanket defence to a breach of duty by directors, since the directors' general duties to act in the best interests of the company (or, on insolvency, its creditors),will continue to apply.
On 26 June the long-awaited Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 came into force and introduced emergency measures to provide protection to directors of companies which continue to trade notwithstanding the threat of insolvency, and to prevent, where possible, companies entering into insolvency due to COVID-19.