On 30 April 2021, reforms to the UK’s regime governing sales in administration by way of a ‘pre-pack’ to a connected party purchaser came into force.

The centrepiece of the reforms is a new requirement for a connected party purchaser to obtain an opinion from an independent ‘evaluator’ on whether the terms of the sale are reasonable.

While the reforms add additional process points that must be navigated in relevant cases, they will bring improved transparency to an important rescue tool which has, at times, attracted warranted criticism.

On 20 January 2021, the UK High Court approved the convening of a single scheme meeting for certain aircraft lessors of MAB Leasing Limited (MABL) in relation its proposed UK scheme of arrangement. This is an important step towards the implementation of a wider restructuring for the Malaysia Airlines group, but may also have wider implications on the restructuring options available not only to airlines, but also to businesses with other leased assets, including real estate.

Lessors form a single class

On 6 September 2020, the England and Wales High Court approved the second scheme of arrangement proposed by Codere (an international gaming group) in a little over five years, following a fully contested convening hearing spread over three days.

In the convening judgment ([2020] EWHC 2441 (Ch)), the Court concluded that the various fees payable to the members of an ad hoc committee of scheme creditors did not fracture the single class proposed by Codere.

On July 6-7, 2017, Craig Jalbert, in his capacity as Trustee for F2 Liquidating Trust, filed approximately 187 complaints seeking the avoidance and recovery of allegedly preferential and/or fraudulent transfers under Sections 547, 548 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code (depending on the nature of the claims). In certain instances, the Trustee also seeks to disallow claims of such defendants under Sections 502(d) and (j) of the Bankruptcy Code.

On June 15, 2017, Curtis R. Smith, as Liquidating Trustee of the Hastings Creditors’ Liquidating Trust, filed approximately 69 complaints seeking the avoidance and recovery of allegedly preferential and/or fraudulent transfers under Sections 547, 548 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Liquidating Trustee also seeks to disallow claims of such defendants under Sections 502(d) and (j) of the Bankruptcy Code.

On June 13, 2017, The Original Soupman, Inc. and its affiliates (collectively “Debtors” or “Original Soupman”) commenced voluntary bankruptcy proceedings under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. According to its petition, Original Soupman estimates that its assets are between $1 million and $10 million, and its liabilities are between $10 million and $50 million.

On May 17, 2017, GulfMark Offshore, Inc. (“GulfMark” or “Debtor”) filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.

Starting on April 28, 2017, Craig R. Jalbert, as Distribution Trustee of the Corinthian Distribution Trust, filed approximately 122 complaints seeking the avoidance and recovery of allegedly preferential and/or fraudulent transfers under Sections 547, 548, 549 and and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code (depending upon the nature of the underlying transactions). The Distribution Trustee also seeks to disallow claims of such defendants under Sections 502(d) and (j) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Whether a claim against company management is direct or derivative is not infrequently disputed in litigation before the Delaware Court of Chancery. This determination becomes important in many contexts, including whether it was necessary for plaintiff to make a pre-suit demand upon the board, whether derivative claims of a company have been assigned to a receiver, or whether such claims have previously been settled in a prior litigation.

Not uncommonly, a preference complaint fails to adequately allege that the transfers sought to be recovered by the trustee were made “for or on account of an antecedent debt owed by the debtor before such transfer was made”, as required under Section 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. Thus, when faced with a complaint to recover alleged preferential transfers, a defendant can proceed in one of two ways: (i) file an answer and raise affirmative defenses, or (ii) move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).