On June 28, 2011, in In re Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. v. Alfa,1 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that Enron’s redemption of its commercial paper prior to maturity fell within the definition of a “settlement payment” and was protected from avoidance under § 546(e)’s safe harbor provision in Title 11 of the United States Code.2

On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court handed down a 5-4 decision in the Stern v.

Vendors who sell goods to customers are probably familiar with the issues that arise when the customer later files bankruptcy.

In the recent case of BNY Corporate v Eurosail[1], the Court of Appeal for the first time considered how the 'balance sheet' test of corporate insolvency in section 123(2) Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) should be applied.

Section 123(2) IA 1986 provides:-

'A company is also deemed unable to pay its debts if it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the value of the company's assets is less than the amount of its liabilities, taking into account its contingent and prospective liabilities.'

In a welcome bit of good news for lenders, US District Court Judge Gold (Southern District of Florida) reversed the portion of the 2009 bankruptcy court decision in the TOUSA, Inc. bankruptcy cases that had ordered the disgorgement of $403 million plus interest based on the holding that the amounts were received by certain lenders to the TOUSA parent in connection with a pre-petition transaction that constituted a fraudulent transfer.

On February 8, 2011, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion that will have a major impact on Chapter 11 plan confirmation. In consolidated appeals stemming from theIn re DBSD North America, Inc. bankruptcy case, the Second Circuit held that (1) the “gifting” aspect of the debtors’ plan of reorganization violated the absolute priority rule, and (2) the bankruptcy court did not err in designating a secured creditor’s vote as lacking “good faith” and disregarding that vote for purposes of confirmation.

The DBSD Plan

In an October 19, 2010 opinion arising out of the Scotia Pacific bankruptcy cases, the Fifth Circuit ruled that reorganized Scotia and its affiliate Pacific Lumber Company were obliged – nearly 2½ years after Scotia’s reorganization plan was consummated – to pay Scotia’s former secured lenders approximately $30 million on account of a mistake made by the bankruptcy judge in calculating the amount owed to the secured lenders for the use of their collateral during the bankruptcy cases.

The concurring opinion in a recent Third Circuit Court of Appeals case1 suggests that trademark licensees may be able to retain their rights in bankruptcy cases, even if licensors reject the license agreements. The majority did not consider whether the licensee could retain its rights. Instead, the majority held that the trademark license was not an executory contract; therefore, it could not be rejected under the Bankruptcy Code. The majority opinion applies narrowly to circumstances involving perpetual, exclusive, and royalty-free trademark licenses.

On September 30, 2010, in In re American Safety Razor, LLC, et al, Case No 10-12351 (MFW), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware ruled that the debtors’ proposed bid procedures for the sale of the business were unfair and unreasonable. The bid procedures, among other things, provided too much discretion to the debtors in the auction process.

363 Sales in General

Background

Administration

Administration is a procedure by which a company can be reorganised and its assets realised whilst being protected by a moratorium from actions brought by creditors (explained below).  

Objectives

A company can be put into administration if the objectives of administration are likely to be achieved. These are set out in the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”)4 as: