To encourage vendors and other creditors to continue doing business with financially distressed entities, the Bankruptcy Code includes various defenses to litigation brought by a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") seeking to avoid pre-bankruptcy payments to such entities. One of these defenses shields from avoidance transfers made to pay debts incurred in the ordinary course of business of the debtor and the transferee.
Mitigating risk of loss associated with a bankruptcy filing should be an element of any commercial transaction, especially if it involves a sale or license of intellectual property rights. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit provides a stark reminder of the consequences of when it is not. In In re Mallinckrodt PLC, 99 F.4th 617 (3d Cir.
Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code's "safe harbor" preventing avoidance in bankruptcy of certain securities, commodity, or forward-contract payments has long been a magnet for controversy. Several noteworthy court rulings have been issued in bankruptcy cases addressing the scope of the provision, including its limitation to transactions involving "financial institutions" as transferors or transferees, its preemption of avoidance litigation that could have been commenced by or on behalf of creditors under applicable non-bankruptcy law, and its application to non-public transactions.
A bedrock principle underlying chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code is that creditors, shareholders, and other stakeholders should be provided with adequate information to make an informed decision to either accept or reject a chapter 11 plan. For this reason, the Bankruptcy Code provides that any "solicitation" of votes for or against a plan must be preceded or accompanied by stakeholders' receipt of a "disclosure statement" approved by the bankruptcy court explaining the background of the case as well as the key provisions of the chapter 11 plan.
The U.S. Supreme Court handed down three bankruptcy rulings to finish the Term ended in July 2024. The decisions address the validity of nonconsensual third-party releases in chapter 11 plans, the standing of insurance companies to object to "insurance neutral" chapter 11 plans, and the remedy for overpayment of administrative fees in chapter 11 cases to the Office of the U.S. Trustee. We discuss each of them below.
U.S. Supreme Court Bars Nonconsensual Third-Party Releases in Chapter 11 Plans
Courts disagree over whether a foreign bankruptcy case can be recognized under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code if the foreign debtor does not reside or have assets or a place of business in the United States. In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit staked out its position on this issue in Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), 737 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2013), ruling that the provision of the Bankruptcy Code requiring U.S. residency, assets, or a place of business applies in chapter 15 cases as well as cases filed under other chapters.
The opening of safeguard or reorganisation proceedings does not automatically terminate a current agreement notwithstanding any contractual clause providing for termination.
Termination by a lessor
The liquidator of UKCloud Ltd (the Company) applied to the court for directions as to whether a debenture granted by the Company created a fixed or floating charge over certain internet protocol (IP) addresses. The lender argued that it had a fixed charge.
Fixed or floating?
Background
The administrators of Toogood International Transport and Agricultural Services Ltd (in administration) issued an application seeking an extension of the administration. Their application also asked the court whether consent to a previous administration extension should have been obtained from a secured creditor which had been paid in full before the extension process.
Once a creditor, always a creditor?
The German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) has clarified the conditions under which incongruent collateral, granted when an insolvency is imminent, can be contested. The burden of proof is placed on the defendant creditor to demonstrate that the action was part of a serious restructuring attempt.
Background