Earlier this year, Mexican airline, Grupo Aeromexico, S.A.B. de C.V. (together with its affiliates, the “Debtors”) announced that their creditor body had overwhelmingly voted to approve their proposed Chapter 11 restructuring plan (the “Plan”) save for one class of unsecured creditor claims that voted to reject the Plan. Those claims were held by Invictus Global Management, LLC (“Invictus”), a distressed investment fund that recently purchased the claims subject to a “plan support provision” which purportedly compelled the claimholder to support the Debtors’ Plan.

The merchant cash advance (“MCA”) industry recently provided two different bankruptcy courts with an opportunity to consider the characterization of MCA funding transactions as either “true sales” of receivables or “disguised loans”.

We have written many times over the past few years about how the bankruptcy courts are off-limits to state-legalized cannabis businesses. This past year brought no new relief to the cannabis industry, and the doors to the bankruptcy courts remain shut. Are the other federal courts off-limits as well? A recent district court decision from the Southern District of California sheds some light on this issue, and indicates that the district courts are at least partially open to participants in legal cannabis businesses.

Factual Background

At the end of 2021, the Spanish government approved draft reforms of the Spanish insolvency laws that transposes Directive (EU) 2019/1023 of 20 June 2019 on preventive restructuring frameworks into Spanish law.

The reform will bring about a comprehensive change in insolvency proceedings in Spain. So what are these changes and what effect will these have in practice?

Restructuring Plans

The practice of granting third party releases in bankruptcy was recently dealt another blow by the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. In Patterson et. al. v. Mahwah Bergen Retail Group, Inc., Civil No. 3:21cv167 (DJN), the District Court found that the lower bankruptcy court lacked the constitutional authority to both rule on certain of the claims covered by the third-party releases at issue and, it follows, to confirm the debtors’ plan of reorganization.

Can messy be good? Sometimes the answer is yes. The chapter 11 case filed by Limetree Bay Services, LLC and five of its affiliates (“Limetree Bay”) is one example of auction disorder actually bringing increased creditor recoveries. Bankruptcy professionals, financially distressed companies and acquirers of distressed assets can learn valuable lessons from this odd bankruptcy auction process, which shows the importance of (1) debtors preserving their flexibility during an auction, and (2) investors having appropriate expectations and resources before bidding on a debtor’s assets.

The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently expressed its view regarding the reach of the “solvent debtor exception” in In re The Hertz Corp., et al. The solvent debtor exception is an equitable doctrine which supports the proposition that creditors are entitled to the full suite of their contractual rights if the debtor in bankruptcy is solvent.

On December 16, 2021, United States District Judge Colleen McMahon of the Southern District of New York overturned the confirmation of Purdue Pharma’s chapter 11 plan of reorganization, “put[ting] to rest” the non-consensual third-party releases debate that has “hovered over bankruptcy law for thirty five years.” Judge McMahon concluded in her 142-page opinion that “the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize such non-consensual

We discussed the announcement that Bulb Energy Ltd (“Bulb”) was due to be placed into special administration in our previous blog outlining how the rules for energy supply companies work, the supplier of last resort (“SoLR”) regime and what energy supply company special administration entails.

Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, adopted in all fifty states plus the District of Columbia with relatively few variations, sets out, among other things, the rules to be followed when obtaining a security interest in personal property collateral to secure a loan. The basic premise of Article 9 is that if the lender follows the rules, it should be protected against third parties, including other creditors or a bankruptcy trustee, who would seek to challenge the lender’s security interest or the priority of the security interest.