Executive Summary

Mr Justice Snowden’s recent judgment sanctioning the Virgin Active restructuring plans is significant for several reasons. Not only is it the first judgment to consider the cram down power of the 2006 Companies Act, but it is only the third instance that the cross-class cram down mechanism has been used. It is also the first time it has been used to cram down classes of dissenting landlords.

Introduction

A fundamental tenet of bankruptcy law is that a debtor will have the ability to get a fresh start once it emerges. A company’s ability to discharge liabilities is among the primary drivers for seeking protection under chapter 11 and, thus, it is of no surprise that ensuring necessary steps are taken for a successful discharge is of utmost importance. Absent a successful discharge of prepetition claims, the reorganized debtor may be saddled with additional liabilities, reducing value for plan stakeholders. The recent Third Circuit unreported decision – Sweeney v.

It is generally recognized that a bankruptcy court has the power—either equitable or statutory—to recharacterize a purported debt as equity if the substance of the transaction belies the labels the parties have given it. A ruling handed down by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York provides a textbook example of such a recharacterization. In In re Live Primary, LLC, 2021 WL 772248 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Mar.

In Stream TV Networks, Inc. v. SeeCubic, Inc., 2020 WL 7230419 (Del. Ch. Dec. 8, 2020), the Delaware Court of Chancery held that the assets of Stream TV Networks, Inc. ("Stream"), an insolvent Delaware-incorporated 3-D television technology company, could be transferred to an affiliate of two of Stream's secured creditors in lieu of foreclosure without seeking the approval of Stream's shareholders under section 271 of the General Corporation Law of Delaware ("DGCL") or Stream's certificate of incorporation.

On April 19, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of a landmark 2019 decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the applicability of the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor for certain securities, commodity, or forward contract payments to prevent the avoidance in bankruptcy of $8.3 billion in payments made to the shareholders of Tribune Co. as part of its 2007 leveraged buyout ("LBO").

BUSINESS RESTRUCTURING REVIEW VOL. 20 • NO. 3 MAY–JUNE 2021 IN THIS ISSUE 1 First Impressions: Third Circuit Scuttles Triangular Setoff in Bankruptcy 4 Should Equitable Mootness Bar Appeals Only of Chapter 11 Plan Confirmation Orders? 7 Debate Intensifies on Substantial Contribution Claims in Chapter 7 Cases 10 Bankruptcy Court Recharacterizes Purported Loan as Equity 14 In Brief: “Failing” Delaware Corporation Can Transfer Assets to Creditors in Lieu of Foreclosure Without Shareholder Consent 15 U.S.

On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court held in City of Chicago v. Fulton, 592 U.S. __ (2021), that a creditor in possession of a debtor's property does not violate the automatic stay, specifically section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code, by retaining the property after the filing of a bankruptcy petition. The Court's decision provides important guidance to bankruptcy courts, practitioners, and parties on the scope of the automatic stay's requirements.

Executive Summary

On March 15, 2021, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Third Circuit”) held that a stalking horse bidder may assert an administrative expense claim pursuant to section 503(b)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code for costs incurred in attempting to close on an unsuccessful transaction, even when the stalking horse bidder is not entitled to a breakup or termination fee.