The Singapore High Court recently issued the first-ever super-priority order for debts arising from rescue financing under Section 211E(1)(b) of the amended insolvency laws in the Companies Act. The decision shows that the court is open to adopting relatively unique deal structures, and could be a benefit for more business-centric solutions.

In Part 1, we discussed how, despite widespread usage, termination in the event of bankruptcy clauses (“ipso facto” clauses) are generally unenforceable pursuant to the bankruptcy code. In this second part, we discuss why these clauses are still prevalent in commercial transactions and the exceptions that allow for enforceability in certain situations.

Why Do Ipso Facto Clauses Remain in Most Contracts?

If ipso facto clauses are generally not enforceable, then why do practically all commercial agreements continue to include them? There are several reasons.

Practically all commercial transactions, including licenses, services agreements, and supply agreements, contain a provision that triggers termination rights, without notice, to a party whenever the other party files for bankruptcy or experiences other insolvency-related event. In Part 1 of a two-part series, we discuss how the commonly used termination-on-insolvency clauses are generally unenforceable despite their widespread use.

Standard Ipso Facto Provision

In Popular Auto, Inc. v. Reyes-Colon (In re Reyes-Colon), Nos. 17-1971, 17-1972, 2019 WL 1785039 (1st Cir. April 24, 2019), the First Circuit recently ruled that “special circumstances” does not authorize a bankruptcy court to use its equitable powers to contravene the numerosity requirement for an involuntary petition under section 303(b)(1) of the Code. This twelve year dispute did not end well for the petitioning creditors.

Addressing unknown future claims in a chapter 11 bankruptcy involves two competing concerns: (a) providing a debtor with a fresh start and (b) providing an unwitting claimant with due process. These competing concerns clash when a debtor seeks to confirm its plan of reorganization, which is intended to provide remedies to all the debtor’s creditors and provide the debtor with a discharge of all pre-confirmation liabilities.

In Keystone Gas Gathering, L.L.C.v. Ad Hoc Committee of Unsecured Creditorsof Ultra Resources, Incorporated (In re Ultra Petroleum Corporation), Case No. 17-20793, –F.3d–, 2019 WL 237365 (5th Cir. Jan. 17, 2019) (Oldham, J.), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that a class of creditors is not “impaired” by a reorganization plan simply because it (a) incorporates the Bankruptcy Code’s restrictions on payment of unmatured interest and (b) fails to award unsecured creditors interest at the contractual rate.

On January 16, 2019, Gymboree Group, Inc. and 10 affiliated debtors (collectively, “Debtors” or “Gymboree”) filed chapter 11 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond Division). On January 17, 2019, Gymboree, Inc. commenced a parallel proceeding in Canada under subsection 50.4(a) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada).

On January 16, 2019, Gymboree Group, Inc. and 10 affiliated debtors (collectively, "Debtors" or "Gymboree") filed chapter 11 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond Division). On January 17, 2019, Gymboree, Inc. commenced a parallel proceeding in Canada under subsection 50.4(a) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada).  

In In re Argon Credit, LLC, et al., Case No. 16-39654 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Jan. 10, 2019), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently held that a standby clause in a subordination agreement prevented a subordinated lender from conducting discovery on the senior lender's claim, pursuant to section 510 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Facts

In In re Argon Credit, LLC, et al., Case No. 16-39654 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Jan. 10, 2019), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently held that a standby clause in a subordination agreement prevented a subordinated lender from conducting discovery on the senior lender’s claim, pursuant to section 510 of the Bankruptcy Code.