In the first of our short videos in relation to business recovery and resilience, John Alderton (Partner in our Restructuring & Insolvency team), responds to the question:
‘There hasn’t been a wave of insolvencies, is business stress still there or are we through the worst of it?’
Please click here to listen to John’s answer.
A bankruptcy court gave “unnecessary and unlikely incorrect” reasoning to support its “excessively broad proposition that sales free and clear under [Bankruptcy Code (“Code”)] Section 363 override, and essentially render nugatory, the critical lessee protections against a debtor-lessor under [Code] 365(h),” said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Feb. 16, 2022. In re Royal Bistro, LLC, 2022 WL 499938, *1-*2 (5th Cir. Feb. 16, 2022).
Appeals from bankruptcy court orders continue to play a key role in bankruptcy practice. The relevant sections of the Judicial Code and the Federal Bankruptcy Rules arguably cover all the relevant issues in a straightforward manner. Recent cases, however, show that neither Congress nor the Rules Committees could ever address the myriad issues raised by imaginative lawyers. The appellate courts continue to wrestle with standing, jurisdiction, mootness, excusable neglect, and finality, among other things.
A “federal [fraudulent transfer claim under Bankruptcy Code § 548] is independent of [a] state-court [foreclosure] judgment,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on Dec. 27, 2021. In reLowry, 2021 WL 6112972, *1 (6th Cir. Dec. 27, 2021). Reversing the lower courts’ approval of a Michigan tax foreclosure sale, the Sixth Circuit reasoned that “the amount paid on foreclosure bore no relation at all to the value of the property, thus precluding the … argument that the sale was for ‘a reasonably equivalent value’ under the rule of BFP v.
We discussed the announcement that Bulb Energy Ltd (“Bulb”) was due to be placed into special administration in our previous blog outlining how the rules for energy supply companies work, the supplier of last resort (“SoLR”) regime and what energy supply company special administration entails.
As has been widely reported, the recent energy price volatility (coupled with the price cap limiting suppliers’ ability to pass increased costs on to consumers) has caused a number of energy supply company failures. Yesterday saw the announcement of the collapse of Bulb, one of the UK’s largest energy suppliers, with it being due to be placed into special administration very shortly.
This is the first energy special administration we’ve seen. So how are the insolvency rules different for energy companies? What is a special administration, and why is this the first one?
Further to our blog last week regarding the restrictions on presentation of winding-up petitions being (partially) lifted, the legislation replacing the existing restrictions on presenting winding-up petitions has now been passed and is due to come into force on 29 September 2021.
A Chapter 11 corporate debtor’s monetary penalty obligation owed to the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”), resulting from “fraud on consumers,” survived the debtor’s reorganization plan discharge, even when the FCC “was not a victim of the fraud,” held the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Sept. 2, 2021. In re Fusion Connect Inc., 2021 WL 3932346, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2021).
“[L]ack of good faith in a SIPA [Securities Investor Protection Act] liquidation applies an inquiry notice, not willful blindness, standard, and that a SIPA trustee does not bear the burden of pleading the transferee’s lack of good faith,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Aug. 30, 2021. In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, 2021 WL 3854761, 91 (2d Cir. Aug. 30, 2021) (“Madoff”).
The author examines a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that involved whether a contract was, or was not, an executory contract.
“[B]ankruptcy inevitably creates harsh results for some players,” explained the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on May 21, 2021, when it denied a film producer’s claim for contractual cure payments in In re Weinstein Company Holdings, LLC. 1