In our prior alert over the summer, we highlighted the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in Stream TV Networks, Inc. v. SeeCubic, Inc., 279 A.3d 323, 329 (Del.
I’m reading a U.S. circuit court’s recent bankruptcy opinion that cites Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011). I’m startled by that and blurt out (to myself), “Who cites Stern anymore?!” and “Is Stern still a thing?!” and “I thought Stern has been narrowed to nearly nothing?!”
What creditor would ever want to be an involuntary bankruptcy petitioner under these statements of facts and law:
Oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. happened on December 4, 2023. Here is a link to the official transcript of such arguments.
My Impression
I’ve read that transcript—and still don’t know what the Court is going to do.
But based on the comments/questions of the justices (which are summarized and compiled below), I do have one impression:
Restructurings defy a one-size fits all approach because every deal is unique and different tools are required to solve different problems. At one end of the restructuring continuum is the so-called “amend and extend,” where the credit agreement is amended to provide incremental liquidity, extend near-term maturities, modify covenants or some combination of the foregoing. This approach is fast and cost-efficient, but limited in its impact. At the other end of the spectrum is a restructuring through chapter 11.
Desperate people do desperate things. And desperation leads even good people astray.
So it is in the world of financial stress. Desperate people do desperate things: like providing sloppy financial statements to creditors, failing to assure that all collateral proceeds go to the proper place, and fudging on the truth here-and-there.
Navigating the Bankruptcy Code can present many traps for unsuspecting debtors, creditors, or asset buyers. The Delaware District Court recently reminded bankruptcy participants of an often overlooked pitfall involving the collision between (i) an unstayed bankruptcy sale order authorizing an asset sale free and clear of successor liability and (ii) federal labor law imposing successor liability on the buyer. See United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC v. Buyer Alloy Steel LLC, Civ. No.
We hear a lot these days about bankruptcy venue abuse via corporate-entity manipulation shortly before bankruptcy filing.
Here’s the latest opinion on that subject—which allows Debtor’s choice of venue to stand, based on a newly-created entity:
Is an involuntary bankruptcy, filed by an owner/creditor of the Debtor, filed in good faith or in bad faith?
That’s the question before the U.S. Supreme Court on which it denied certiorari on October 30, 2023 (Wortley v. Juranitch, Case No. 23-211).
Here’s the gist of the case.
The U.S. Trustee is on a crusade to eradicate every type of third-party release from all Chapter 11 bankruptcy plans—no matter what the facts or circumstances might be.
It’s a policy based on the idea that, if the Bankruptcy Code doesn’t specifically and explicitly authorize something, then that something cannot be done . . . ever . . . under any circumstances . . . no matter what . . . period . . . end of story.
We now have another manifestation of that bright-line and unyielding position. Fortunately, the Bankruptcy Court rejects the U.S. Trustee’s objection.