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, for the first time since the introduction of the legislation in June 2020, refused to sanction a cross-class cram-down restructuring plan under Part 26A of the Companies Act. In In the matter of Hurricane Energy Plc [2021] EWHC 1759 (Ch), the court rejected a plan supported by bondholders because it had not been shown that the opposing shareholders had no better alternative prospects (i.e., the ‘no worse off condition’ had not been met).
The Supreme Court’s decision in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 of 15 July 2020 provided much needed clarity on the scope of the rule against “reflective loss”.
On 17 October 2020 the coronavirus amendments1 came into effect after being signed by the President of Ukraine. The amendments temporarily change the Code on Bankruptcy Proceedings to protect Ukrainian businesses and mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
With effect from 17 October 2020, throughout the quarantine period and 90 days thereafter, the following changes will apply to the bankruptcy process:
On 17 October 2020 the coronavirus amendments1 came into effect after being signed by the President of Ukraine. The amendments temporarily change the Code on Bankruptcy Proceedings to protect Ukrainian businesses and mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
With effect from 17 October 2020, throughout the quarantine period and 90 days thereafter, the following changes will apply to the bankruptcy process:
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 19 June 2020, the Ukrainian Parliament adopted law (draft law No. 2284) aimed at introducing sweeping new changes to regulation of financial instruments (the Law). The Law has also paved the way for a wide range of new financial instruments such as derivatives, green bonds, loan notes, and other structured finance products.
On 19 June 2020, the Ukrainian Parliament adopted law (draft law No. 2284) aimed at introducing sweeping new changes to regulation of financial instruments (the Law). The Law has also paved the way for a wide range of new financial instruments such as derivatives, green bonds, loan notes, and other structured finance products.