In a much-anticipated decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently held that unsecured noteholders’ claims against a debtor for certain “Applicable Premiums” were the “economic equivalent” to unmatured interest and, therefore, not recoverable under section 502(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.
As you know from our prior alerts, creditors of borrowers formed as Delaware LLCs (as opposed to corporations) lack standing under Delaware law to sue directors for breaching fiduciary duties even when, to the surprise of many, the LLC is insolvent. See our prior Alert. The disparity of substantive creditor rights depending entirely on corporate form results from two aspects of Delaware law.
There is a growing trend of bankruptcy courts approving structured dismissals of chapter 11 cases following a successful sale of a debtor’s assets under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. A structured dismissal is a cost‑effective way for a debtor to exit chapter 11 and is an alternative to (a) confirming a post‑sale liquidating plan, which is expensive and not always viable, or (b) converting the case to chapter 7, which introduces significant uncertainty and unpredictability with the appointment of a chapter 7 trustee to replace management.
Bankruptcy Considerations for Unitranche Transactions with Super-Priority Revolvers without an AAL
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.
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.
Once again, we reflect on the prior year for restructuring trends impacting private credit lenders. Last year it was all about “liability management”—the latest trend in which the limits of sponsor-favorable loan documents are being tested, in some cases past the breaking point.
Introduction
The UK Supreme Court has recently delivered a landmark decision in the case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25. The decision is of great importance as the Supreme Court considered in detail whether the trigger for the directors’ duty to consider creditors’ interest is merely a real risk, as opposed to a probability of or close proximity to, insolvency.
Background
簡介
英國最高法院最近在BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25一案中頒下了重要裁決,其重要之處在於最高法院深入探討了董事考慮債權人權益的責任,是只需出現真正的無力償債風險便已觸發,還是在相當可能或瀕臨無力償債時才觸發。
背景
本案的第二及第三答辯人為AWA公司(「該公司」)的董事。於2009年5月,他們安排該公司向該公司唯一股東(「第一答辯人」)派發1.35億歐元的股息(「該股息」),以抵銷第一答辯人結欠該公司的債務。該公司在支付該股息時,其資產負債表及現金流均處於具償債能力的狀況。然而,該公司有一項與污染相關而金額未定的長期或然負債,導致該公司產生未來可能無力償債的真正風險。
简介
英国最高法院最近在BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25一案中颁下了重要裁决,其重要之处在于最高法院深入探讨了董事考虑债权人权益的责任,是只需出现真正的无力偿债风险便已触发,还是在相当可能或濒临无力偿债时才触发。
背景
本案的第二及第三答辩人为AWA公司(「该公司」)的董事。于2009年5月,他们安排该公司向该公司唯一股东(「第一答辩人」)派发1.35亿欧元的股息(「该股息」),以抵销第一答辩人结欠该公司的债务。该公司在支付该股息时,其资产负债表及现金流均处于具偿债能力的状况。然而,该公司有一项与污染相关而金额未定的长期或然负债,导致该公司产生未来可能无力偿债的真正风险。