Introduction
On 20 May 2025, Mr Justice Marcus Smith handed down his eagerly-awaited judgment sanctioning the two inter-conditional restructuring plans (the Plans) proposed by members of the Petrofac Group. The judgment raises issues described as “going to the heart of the Part 26A regime” and is significant as the first case to consider the application of the Court of Appeal’s ruling in Thames Water.
The judgment addresses three particularly interesting points:
On 8 April 2025, Mr Justice Marcus Smith delivered judgment granting Petrofac Limited and Petrofac International (UAE) LLC (the Plan Companies) permission to convene creditor meetings in respect of two inter-conditional restructuring Plans (the Plans). The fulsome judgment, following hearings on 28 February and 20 March, contains a number of interesting points:
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 High Court has rejected a landlord's challenge to the Caffè Nero CVA, giving support to the ongoing usefulness of CVAs in high street restructurings. The case raised issues around the use of the electronic decision procedure set out in the Insolvency Rules for CVAs, nominee and director decision-making during the CVA process, CVA modifications and provision of information to CVA creditors.
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.
Die weltweite Ausbreitung des Coronavirus sorgt für heftige Turbulenzen im Wirtschaftsleben. Gerät eine GmbH in finanzielle Schieflage, steht besonders die Geschäftsführung unter Druck. Sie kämpft um das wirtschaftliche Überleben der Gesellschaft. Gleichzeitig kommen verschiedene Szenarien für die Haftung des Geschäftsführers in Betracht, wenn dieser keine Krisenprävention durchgeführt hat oder in der Krise nicht die erforderliche Sorgfalt anwendet.
Haftung wegen unzureichender Krisenprävention
The coronavirus pandemic is sending shock waves through the business world. If a GmbH (German limited liability company) finds itself in financial distress, the management in particular will be under pressure and must fight for the survival of the business. At the same time, there are various scenarios in which managing directors could be held liable for not implementing crisis prevention measures or exercising the necessary diligence during the crisis.
Liability for inadequate crisis prevention
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