Summer 2024 Editor: Melanie Willems IN THIS ISSUE “Seething on a jet plane” - conditions precedent and time of the essence in commercial contracts by Jack Spence 03 09 11 24 Diamonds aren’t forever: who is vicariously responsible when they have been stolen?
On May 16th, the DOL released interim final rules (the “Final Rules”) and an amendment to Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2006-06 (the “Amendment to PTE”), effective July 16, 2024, amending the DOL’s Abandoned Plan Program (the “APP”) to allow Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustees to use the APP to terminate, wind up, and distribute assets from a bankrupt company’s retirement plan.
In a recent legal development that underscores the intricate interplay between federal bankruptcy law and the cannabis industry, a court case has emerged involving a bankruptcy filing by an employee of a cannabis company. It’s well established that, because cannabis is generally considered a controlled substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), certain cannabis related companies are precluded from obtaining debt relief through bankruptcy. Now individuals employed by cannabis companies might find themselves in the same boat. In Blumsack v. Harrington, 2024 Bankr.
The Aldrich Pump Texas Two-Step bankruptcy may have survived dismissal at the bankruptcy court level, but now the asbestos claimants have appealed to the Fourth Circuit following Judge Whitley's approval of their motion for direct appeal.1
The Fifth Circuit recently issued an opinion that increases the marketability of estate assets often viewed as untouchable. In In re S. Coast Supply Co. ("South Coast"), 91 F.4th 376 (5th Cir. 2024), the Fifth Circuit held that a bankruptcy "preference" action may be sold to a third party under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code even if the buyer is not an estate fiduciary and does not represent the bankruptcy estate. A preference action is an "avoidance" claim arising under section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code.
In a welcome clarification for administrators, the UK Supreme Court in the recent case of R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court[1], held that an administrator appointed under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) is not an “officer” of the company for the purposes of section 194(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA).
In this client alert, we set out the key findings by the Court of Appeal in Darty Holdings SAS v Geoffrey Carton-Kelly [2023] EWCA Civ 1135, which considers an appeal against the High Court decision that a repayment by Comet Group plc (“Comet”) of £115 million of unsecured intra-group debt to Kesa International Ltd (“KIL”) was a preference under section 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”).
Background to the Case
Whilst commonplace in the U.S., uptier transactions in which a borrower teams up with a subset of creditors to issue new “super priority” debt by amending or exchanging existing debt documents, have not been widely used in Europe.
However, with increasing macro economic pressures and financial market instability, we may see more European borrowers taking advantage of flexibility in cov-lite debt documentation to implement liability management transactions as an alternative to, or even as part of, more formal restructurings.
On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California (“Court”) confirmed a plan for a cannabis-related business (“Debtor”) to sell its equity interests in a Canadian cannabis company, Lowell Farms, and distribute the proceeds to its creditors.
This week, the Ninth Circuit addresses whether text messages can violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s prohibition on “prerecorded voice” messages, and it considers whether debtors who paid statutory fees under an unconstitutionally nonuniform bankruptcy provision are entitled to a refund.