The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on September 10, 2024 issued its anticipated opinion in In re The Hertz Corp., with a majority holding that make-whole premiums constitute unmatured interest disallowed by the US Bankruptcy Code, but also finding that solvent debtors must pay creditors their full claims as dictated by contract, including make-whole and post-petition interest, before distributions can be made to equity.

One of the primary goals of bankruptcy law is to provide debtors with a fresh start by imposing an automatic stay and allowing for claims of reorganizing debtors to be discharged. In environmental law, a primary goal is to ensure that the “polluter pays” for environmental harms. These two goals collide when an entity with environmental liabilities enters bankruptcy. The result is often outcomes that are the exception, rather than the rule, with many unsettled areas of law that can be dealt with by bankruptcy courts in varying ways.

In a decision likely to have a knock-on effect for future fraudulent transfer defense and valuation litigation, the Delaware bankruptcy court recently ruled that the price agreed in the sale of an oil and gas company closed by market participants represents the reasonably equivalent value for the assets being sold and is more reliable evidence of value than expert testimony prepared for the purposes of litigation.

A panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued its long-anticipated decision in the Ultra Petroleum make-whole and post-petition interest dispute, with the majority holding that the solvent-debtor exception survived the enactment of the US Bankruptcy Code.

Directors resign for many reasons. For example, there may be disagreements among stakeholders about the future course of the company, they may be concerned about the risks associated with financial difficulty/insolvency, or they may just wish to retire.

This is one of a series of articles we at Morton Fraser are producing to guide our clients through the wholesale change proposed in Scots law in relation to security over goods, intellectual property and shares, on the one hand, and invoice finance or the purchase of receivables, on the other. For a general introduction to what the Bill covers, see here.

UK Government introduces a temporary increase to minimum debt level required for a winding up petition

Restrictions have been in place since the start of the pandemic to prevent creditors taking steps to wind up debtor companies. Those restrictions are due to expire on September 30, 2021. To lessen the risk of October seeing a mass rush by creditors seeking to wind up their debtors, the UK Government has introduced a further temporary measure in connection with liquidation petitions.

In this two part article we highlight for directors some of the main ways in which the general protection of limited liability does not apply or can be lost.

Part one of this article discusses those exceptions to the principle of limited liability that arise in insolvency or distress situations. Part two deals with the provisions that have more general applicability.

Breach of duties

Limited liability is one of the fundamental concepts in our understanding of company law. Even people who know very little about the working of limited companies may know that directors and shareholders are not liable for the debts of their companies. For the last 160 years, the protection of limited liability has been a key factor in economic growth and commercial activity as it has allowed entrepreneurs to speculate and take risks that they might not have been willing to do if the risk of personal liability overshadowed their decision-making.

One of the main differences in insolvency law between Scotland and England & Wales relates to the challengeable transactions regime under the Insolvency Act 1986.

In both jurisdictions, transactions that are entered into before a formal insolvency process begins can be attacked if they are detrimental to the creditors of the insolvent company. However, although both systems use similar language and address similar concerns, the law in the two jurisdictions is different, most notably with different time periods and defences to a challenge.