Protecting your business from exposure to supplier and customer insolvency
The risk of unforeseen counterparty customer or supplier financial distress and failure amidst the on-going challenges for businesses from COVID-19 means that pre-emptive legal and operational protections against the risk of heavy financial loss or business disruption from customer/supplier failure are more valuable than ever.
On September 29, 2020, the United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary advanced a Democrat-backed bill to the full chamber that seeks to address perceived shortcomings in the Bankruptcy Code’s protections for employee and retiree benefits and to curtail the use of bonuses and special compensation arrangements for executives in bankruptcy cases.
The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 introduces a range of changes to UK insolvency law of a magnitude not seen since the reforms of the Enterprise Act 2002. One of the reforms included in the Act is a wide ranging prohibition on the operation of termination clauses in contracts for the supply of goods and/or services where the counterparty enters a relevant insolvency process.
What do the provisions do?
Under the new provisions, suppliers will be prevented from:
Recently, in In re Tribune Company, the Third Circuit affirmed that the Bankruptcy Code means exactly what it says and that the enforcement of subordination agreements can be abridged when cramming down confirmation of a chapter 11 plan over a rejecting class entitled to the benefit of the subordination agreement, so long as doing so does not “unfairly discriminate” against the rejecting class (and the other requirements for a cramdown are satisfied).
The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 introduces a range of changes to UK insolvency law of a magnitude not seen since the reforms of the Enterprise Act 2002. One of the reforms included in the Act is a wide ranging prohibition on the operation of termination clauses in contracts for the supply of goods and/or services where the counterparty enters a relevant insolvency process.
What do the provisions do?
Under the new provisions, suppliers will be prevented from:
Analyzing the inner workings of the elements required for the securities contract “safe harbor” protection under Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy Court for the SDNY dismissed a complaint seeking to recover approximately US$1 billion in allegedly fraudulent transfers brought against various transferees as part of the Boston Generating Chapter 11 case.
No, says the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in In re Maxus Energy Corp. In Maxus, the defendant, Vista Analytical Laboratory, Inc. (“Vista” or the “Defendant”), a designated critical vendor, sought summary judgement dismissing the preference complaint. The Court denied summary judgement finding that the critical vendor status did not per se insulate Vista from preference actions.
Background
It is well established that by filing a proof of claim in bankruptcy, a creditor submits itself to the equitable jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court and waives any right it would otherwise have to a jury trial with respect to any issue that “bears directly on the allowance of its claim.” Such a waiver normally applies in fraudulent transfer actions, since under Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code the court must disallow a claim of any entity that received an avoidable transfer.
In a recent bench ruling, the Delaware bankruptcy court denied a motion to dismiss a chapter 11 bankruptcy filing, notwithstanding the fact that the filing contravened an express bankruptcy-filing blocking right, or “golden share,” held by certain preferred shareholders.
Two courts recently answered “yes,” finding that environmental claims brought against reorganized debtors by government entities were discharged under confirmed Chapter 11 plans of reorganization. In In re Exide Techs., 613 B.R. 79 (D. Del. 2020), the District of Delaware held that pre-petition, non-compensatory air quality penalties imposed on a Chapter 11 debtor by a state regulator were subject to discharge in bankruptcy. And in In re Peabody Energy Corp.
I.Exide Techs.: the Bankruptcy Code’s Exceptions to Dischargeability