‘If, at first, you don’t succeed, then try and try again’ is a fitting description for HMRC’s recent approach to restructuring plans, with its opposition of plans proposed by The Great Annual Savings Company (GAS) and Nasmyth Group Limited (Naysmyth).
The GAS sanction hearing (which is due to take place this week) will be the first time that HMRC has taken an active role contesting a restructuring plan at sanction following the case of Houst where the Court exercised its discretionary power to “cram down” HMRC.
“The trustee may avoid . . . any obligation . . . incurred by the debtor, that was madeor incurred“ with actual fraudulent intent or as constructive fraud.
–From § 548 of Bankruptcy Code (emphasis added).
Similar language is contained in the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act—and in its predecessor acts—for 100+ years. [Fn. 1]
But actions to avoid debts as fraudulent transfers are rare—and largely unknown, it seems.
A Bad Experience
Boy Scouts of American achieved a confirmed plan of reorganization in its bankruptcy.
That confirmation is now affirmed on appeal by the U.S. District Court in Delaware[fn. 1]—and is heading to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for further review.
The District Court’s affirming opinion is 155 pages long and highly detailed. This article tries to summarizes the opinion’s highlights—attempting to make the complex clear.
100% Payment Plan
The core of the opinion, around which most everything else revolves, is this:
Question: Can a creditor prevent its debtor from filing bankruptcy by pre-petition contract terms?
Answer: No . . . according to In re Roberson Cartridge Co., LLC, Case No. 22-20192 in the Northern Texas Bankruptcy Court (03/07/2023, opinion at Doc. 77).
Facts
The Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) (Practice Schedule) was introduced in 2015 via the Insolvency Law Reform Bill 2015. The Practice Schedule was introduced together with the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Bankruptcy) with the intention of providing specific rules to aid in the handling of personal bankruptcies and corporate external administration.
In a previous blog about the case of Mizen we considered the case from the point of view of “guarantee stripping”, looking at how the CVA dealt with those claims. However, the CVA was challenged on a number of bases, including whether it was unfairly prejudicial as a consequence of “vote swamping”.
In this blog, we look at that aspect of the case.
Say what?!.
“Hypothetical jurisdiction” for a bankruptcy appeal?!
Who knew? I sure didn’t.
But it is, apparently, a thing . . . and it may even be real.
At U.S. Supreme Court
A newly filed Petition in the U.S. Supreme Court is Waleski v. Montgomery, McCraken, Walker & Rhodes, LLP, Case No. 22-914 (Petition filed 3/16/2023).
–The Question
The Question Presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in Waleski v Montgomery is this:
What happens when a creditor class fails or refuses to vote on confirmation of a Subchapter V plan? Does that prevent a consensual confirmation?
We have a recent answer from In re Creason, Case No. 22-00988, Western Michigan Bankruptcy Court (opinion issued 2/23/2023).
Facts
The Subchapter V Debtor is a sole-proprietor dentist.
In January, we wrote about Highland Capital Management, L.P. and the reorganized debtor’s filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari, by which the reorganized debtor asked the Supreme Court to consider whether section 524(e) of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits non-debtor exculpations.
With all the market turmoil and headlines about insolvencies or potential insolvencies in the financial sector and the wider markets, and potential rescue of stressed/distressed entities, many clients are concerned, and should be thinking, about the potential impact of these developments on their derivatives (commonly documented under an ISDA master agreement (an ISDA)) and, in particular: (a) if the relevant event constitutes a default, potential event of default, event of default or termination event or, alternatively, will trigger automatic early termination, under their ISDAs with their