The characterisation of a charge as fixed or floating can have significant ramifications for the chargee on chargor’s insolvency. This is because the holder of a fixed charge enjoys significant advantage, in terms of the order of priority of distributions to creditors, over a floating charge holder.

On May 8, cryptocurrency platform Bittrex filed for chapter 11 in Delaware. Bittrex’s first day filings emphasize that, unlike many other crypto filings over the past year, this case is not a “free fall” bankruptcy. In fact, a plan has already been filed, and the first day declaration said the debtors “took extensive action pre-petition to ensure full customer recovery, and plan to swiftly bring these chapter 11 cases to a responsible conclusion.”

The English Court has refused to sanction two separate restructuring plans proposed by Nasmyth Group Limited (Nasmyth) and The Great Annual Savings Company Ltd (GAS). Both companies sought to use Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 to “cram down” His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC). Whilst neither decision is the first time that Part 26A has been used in this way¹, they are the first to involve any active participation by HMRC in the sanction hearing².

Although in the Ninth Circuit the decision to revisit an order under FRCP 60 is “highly discretionary,” judges still must explicitly grapple with the relevant factors. That was the clear message sent by Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. of the Northern District of California when reviewing an appeal from the PG&E Corporation’s chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Globalisation means that the effects of a business entering insolvency proceedings rarely stay within the territorial confines of a single jurisdiction; one need only look to the recent cryptocurrency bankruptcies as evidence of this. Cross-border insolvencies are no longer the preserve of large multinational corporation failures. Globalisation and the advent of digitisation mean that even small enterprises have customers, assets, and suppliers in multiple countries. This is particularly so across Asia.

Key takeaways

In BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and others,¹ the UK Supreme Court considered for the first time the existence, content and triggers of the obligation on directors to have regard to the interests of creditors when a company becomes insolvent or is bordering on insolvency (the Creditor Duty).

This decision addresses important issues for directors, stakeholders, and advisors of UK companies.

Background

Persuading a bankruptcy judge to find “excusable neglect” after missing a filing deadline is usually a tough sell. You’d think it would be particularly hard when the party seeking relief was “belligerent and disrespectful to the Court and opposing counsel.”

We have previously blogged about Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, No. 21-908, a Supreme Court case concerning the scope of the fraud exception to the dischargeability of debts in bankruptcy. Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code exempts from discharge “any debt . . . for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained by . . .

In a recent per curium opinion, the Fifth Circuit recommitted to its practice of dismissing claims against court-appointed fiduciaries when plaintiffs fail to obtain permission before bringing suit. The court rested its decision on the Barton doctrine, which other courts, including the Eleventh Circuit, have found inapplicable in similar circumstances.

Protecting your business from exposure to supplier and customer insolvency

As we move through Q1 of 2023, significant shifts are occurring in the Global financial and economic landscape which are of significant consequence for business. The marked upward shift in the cost (and reduced availability) of finance, largely unseen for over a decade, combined with high energy and natural resource/raw material costs and challenges and currency fluctuations has the potential to sharply to expose financial distress in businesses in many countries and global supply chains.