In Tynefield Care Ltd (and others) v the New India Assurance Company Ltd¹ the indemnity claims of the insured Claimant companies were dismissed, and policies avoided from inception for breach of the duty of fair presentation under the Insurance Act 2015. The breach related to the insolvency history of one of the de facto or shadow directors of the Claimant companies.

This judgment therefore adds to the post-2015 Act case law considering breach of the duty of fair presentation.

Deal structure matters, particularly in bankruptcy. The Third Circuit recently ruled that a creditor’s right to future royalty payments in a non-executory contract could be discharged in the counterparty-debtor’s bankruptcy. The decision highlights the importance of properly structuring M&A, earn-out, and royalty-based transactions to ensure creditors receive the benefit of their bargain — even (or especially) if their counterparty later encounters financial distress.

Background

In early February, a Delaware bankruptcy judge set new precedent by granting a creditors’ committee derivative standing to pursue breach of fiduciary duty claims against a Delaware LLC’s members and officers. At least three prior Delaware Bankruptcy Court decisions had held that creditors were barred from pursuing such derivative claims by operation of Delaware state law, specifically under the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act (the “DLLCA”).

A Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court’s recent appellate decision in Blumsack v. Harrington (In re Blumsack) leaves the door open for those employed in the cannabis industry to seek bankruptcy relief where certain conditions are met.

It is a rare occasion that one can be assured with certainty that, if they file a motion with a bankruptcy court, it will be granted. But, in the Third Circuit, that is exactly what will happen if a creditor or other party in interest moves for an examiner to be appointed under Section 1104(c) of the Bankruptcy Code. Once considered to be within the discretion of a bankruptcy court “as is appropriate,” the appointment of an examiner is now guaranteed if the statutory predicates are fulfilled according to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

HFW DISPUTES DIGEST 2023

Welcome to the second annual Disputes Digest, in which we collate our 2023 global HFW LITIGATION and International Arbitration publications in one place.

This edition includes updates from across our Disputes arena, including England and Wales, BVI, AsiaPac, and the Middle East.

Advice that may have served House of Pain in their 1992 hit song, “Jump Around,” to “bring a shotgun” to battle likely does not translate well to plaintiffs in federal litigation contemplating bringing a “shotgun” pleading to court. In this article we explore types of shotgun pleadings identified by courts and outline potential responses to a shotgun pleading.

Shotgun Pleadings and Relationship to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

In May I wrote about a manufacturer of Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) excused from the PFAS Multi-District Litigation in South Carolina because its PFAS-related liabilities might exceed its assets which is something for a Federal Bankruptcy Court to sort out.  At the time I worried that this was only one of many PFAS-related bankruptcies we would be seeing

On average, the Supreme Court hears a single bankruptcy case each term. But during the October 2022 term, the Supreme Court issued a remarkable four decisions in bankruptcy cases. These decisions, which are summarized below, address appellate issues relating to sale orders, the discharge of claims obtained by fraud, and sovereign immunity issues in two different contexts.

I. Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code is not a jurisdictional provision that precludes appellate review of asset sale orders.

COMMODITIES CASE UPDATE JULY 2023 HFW COMMODITIES CASE UPDATE JULY 2023 We are delighted to present the July 2023 edition of the Commodities Case Update, with a summary of 12 key recent cases relevant to the commodities sector. With a market leading commodities team, we have over 100 lawyers who provide a full service internationally. The group is led by a team of over 25 partners, who are based in all our offices around the world, including in the major trading hubs of London, Paris, Geneva, Dubai, Singapore, Hong Kong and Sydney.