In most cases seeking recognition of a foreign bankruptcy proceeding in the United States under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code, the foreign debtor's "foreign representative" has been appointed by the foreign court or administrative body overseeing the debtor's bankruptcy case.

The Bankruptcy Code does not explicitly authorize the equitable remedy of "substantive consolidation"—i.e., treating the assets and liabilities of two or more related entities as if they belonged to a single, consolidated bankruptcy estate. However, it is well recognized that a bankruptcy court has the authority to order such relief under appropriate circumstances in the exercise of its broad equitable powers when each of the original entities are already debtors subject to the court's jurisdiction.

Recent headlines have starkly illuminated the headwinds facing health care providers struggling to recover from a host of financial pressures. Many providers have resorted to filing for bankruptcy protection as a way, among other things, to right-size their balance sheets or effect a sale of their assets or businesses.

Bankruptcy and appellate courts disagree over the standard that should apply to a request for payment of a break-up fee or expense reimbursement to the losing bidder in a sale of assets outside the ordinary course of the debtor's business. Some apply a "business judgment" standard, while others require that the proposed payments satisfy the more rigorous standard applied to administrative expense claims.

Section 1124(2) of the Bankruptcy Code gives chapter 11 debtors a valuable tool for use in situations where long-term prepetition debt carries a significantly lower interest rate than the rates available at the time of emergence from bankruptcy. Under this section, in a chapter 11 plan, the debtor can "cure" any defaults under the relevant agreement and "reinstate" the maturity date and other terms of the original agreement, thus enabling the debtor to "lock in" a favorable interest rate in a prepetition loan agreement upon bankruptcy emergence.

A free-standing moratorium for financially distressed but ultimately viable companies was introduced in 2020. It is sometimes called a Part A1 moratorium, after the part of the Insolvency Act 1986 which provides for it.

In Short

The Background: On November 15, 2023, the Temporary Fast-Track Liquidation Transparency Act (Tijdelijke Wet Transparantie Turboliquidatie) (the "Act") came into force in the Netherlands, temporarily changing certain statutory provisions in the Dutch Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek), the Dutch Bankruptcy Act (Faillissementswet), and the Dutch Economic Offenses Act (Wet op de economische delicten).

A "double-dip" structure is considered a way to allow some creditors to have multiple claims against key obligors arising out of the same underlying transactions. These additional claims could improve their position relative to other creditors in a bankruptcy or liquidation.

Overview

• The UK Supreme Court issued a recent decision in R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates Court and Another [2023] UKSC 38.
• Crucially, the Court determined that an administrator is not an officer of the company within the meaning of the phrase 'any director, manager, secretary or similar officer of the body corporate', for the purpose of section 194(3).

Contents

R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates Court and Another [2023] UKSC 38

R (ON THE APPLICATION OF PALMER) V NORTHERN DERBYSHIRE MAGISTRATES COURT AND ANOTHER [2023] UKSC 38

Insolvency practitioners will welcome the Supreme Court’s recent decision that an administrator of a company appointed under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA) does not fall within the ambit of section 194(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992) (TULRCA) and therefore cannot be held personally liable under criminal law for the company’s failure to give notice to the Secretary of State in accordance with section 193 of TULRCA.