On 8 April 2025, Mr Justice Marcus Smith delivered judgment granting Petrofac Limited and Petrofac International (UAE) LLC (the Plan Companies) permission to convene creditor meetings in respect of two inter-conditional restructuring Plans (the Plans). The fulsome judgment, following hearings on 28 February and 20 March, contains a number of interesting points:

“[T]he appellant would not have acquired priority over other creditors by the sheriff’s levy, for the obvious reason that the right of property in the goods seized under the execution had previously passed” to the assignee under Debtor’s ABC.

• Reed v McIntyre, 98 U.S. 507, 512 (1878).

Facts

The Debtor, in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Reed v. McIntyre opinion, is a merchant.

Before 1998, (i) all student loans from for-profit lenders were dischargeable in bankruptcy, but (ii) student loans backed by the federal government or from non-profits were dischargeable in only these circumstances:

The Sino-Ocean restructuring plan is the first to be sanctioned in 2025 – but it starts the year off with a very interesting bang. In a relatively short (and commendably clear) judgment, the Court addresses head on:

The common law of assignments for benefit of creditors (“ABCs”) has been around for a very long time as an out-of-court process under the law of trusts: debtor is trustor, assignee is trustee, and debtor’s creditors are beneficiaries.

And the common law of ABCs had already been well-established, when the U.S. Constitution was ratified.

New rules in the UK allow Companies House to share non-public information with insolvency officeholders and the Official Receiver.

While in many cases there may be limited non-public information available from Companies House that will be useful to insolvency officeholders, this is another tool available to deploy in appropriate cases. It is specifically envisaged to assist officeholders pursuing claims for fraudulent and wrongful trading, transactions at an undervalue and preferences.

The intersection of state escrow laws and federal bankruptcy laws can create confusion and surprise for contracting parties.

The Problem & Four Examples

The problem creating such confusion and surprise is this. State escrow laws:

• are, typically, defined by the common law;
• lack precise details; and
• are often applied in bankruptcy to the detriment of the party who believes a valid escrow exists.

Here are four examples of the escrow / bankruptcy problem.

Two-years prospective relief from the automatic bankruptcy stay is a remedy granted for serial bankruptcy filings, under § 362(d)(4)(B), in In re Karpuleon, Case No. 24-80647 in Central Illinois Bankruptcy Court (entered 12/6/2024; Doc. 48).

Facts

Here’s what happened.

Debtor files a Chapter 13 petition on August 22, 2024—this is Debtor’s fourth such petition in the past four years.

On 13 December 2024, EU member states agreed on a ‘partial’ general approach to the harmonisation of insolvency law.

The opinion is Samson v. The LCF Group, Inc. (In re Bridger Steele, Inc.), Adv. No. 2:24-ap-2003 in the Montana Bankruptcy Court (decided September 30, 2024; Doc. 10).

Background

Debtor is a fabricator and seller of metal roofing and siding products.