The High Court has considered whether trustees in bankruptcy are in breach of sanctions by allowing sanctioned Russian creditors to participate in UK insolvency proceedings.

Background

A Russian national, resident in London is subject to bankruptcy proceedings both in Russia and the UK. The bankrupt's creditors include four Russian banks in liquidation in Russia. The UK trustees in bankruptcy applied to the court for directions concerning three main questions:

The liquidator of UKCloud Ltd (the Company) applied to the court for directions as to whether a debenture granted by the Company created a fixed or floating charge over certain internet protocol (IP) addresses. The lender argued that it had a fixed charge.

Fixed or floating?

The High Court considered whether a limitation period could prevent the presentation of a winding up petition based on a Lebanese judgment debt which was not registered as an English judgment.

Background

The creditor presented a winding up petition based on a judgment debt of $776,907.51 obtained in a Lebanese court in 2010. The debtor applied to restrain presentation of the petition on grounds that the judgment had not been registered nor recognised by the English Courts and the claim was time-barred.

Recognition

The English High Court has considered, on appeal, whether a foreign judgment constitutes a "debt" for the purposes of a bankruptcy petition.

Background

A bankruptcy petition served by Servis-Terminal LLC (ST) was based on a Russian court judgment obtained against Drelle, a former director of ST. The judgment had been upheld following appeals to superior courts in Russia.

There was no evidence that Drelle would be able to pay the judgment debt which was considerably more than the bankruptcy threshold.

Appeal

The High court has recently considered whether permission should be given retrospectively to lift an administration moratorium to allow a counterclaim to proceed.

Background

The counterclaim had been brought by WWTAI against CargoLogicAir Ltd (in administration) (CLA) without the consent of the administrators or the Court. CLA contended that the counterclaim was issued in breach of the statutory administration moratorium and should be struck out.

Solely to set off

On 4 March 2024, the High Court approved the amended restructuring plan (the Plan) of Project Lietzenburger Straße Holdco S.à.r.L (the Company) a Luxembourg incorporated company part of the German Aggregate Holdings Group, despite refusing to sanction its original plan.

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.

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.