When a business entity that is regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is closely related to another business entity, FERC takes the position that under some circumstances it may treat the two different legal entities as if they were one single entity.

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

Introduction

In light of the decisions made in the case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2019] EWCA Civ 112 (the Sequana case), consideration may need to be given to the interests of creditors when declaring a dividend. The Court of Appeal in the Sequana case concluded that the payment of an otherwise lawful dividend constituted a transaction defrauding creditors under section 423 of the UK’s Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986).

Background to the Sequana Case

Does a creditor’s good-faith belief that a discharge injunction does not apply to its debt preclude a finding of civil contempt? Due to a circuit split, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to decide this issue.

Are a licensee’s rights to use a trademark safe if the licensor files for bankruptcy and rejects the trademark license? This is a question the U.S. Supreme Court may resolve later this year.

In retail bankruptcies, it is important for suppliers consigning goods to merchants to be aware of the commercial law rules governing consignments. Disputes among consignors, inventory lenders, and bankruptcy debtors have been arising frequently in retail bankruptcy cases. Disputes like these can be avoided if consignors consider the basics of commercial law rules governing consignments, particularly under the Uniform Commercial Code, and take steps to protect their rights and interests.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a discharge under the Bankruptcy Code does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained by use of a statement in writing that is materially false, respecting the debtor’s financial condition, on which the creditor to whom the debtor is liable for such money, property, services, or credit reasonably relied, and that the debtor caused to be made or published with intent to deceive.

In Bakery and Confectionery Union Fund v. Just Born II, Inc., the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on April 26, 2018, affirmed the district court’s judgment requiring Just Born to pay delinquent contributions into the Bakery and Confectionery Union and Industry International Pension Fund (the Pension Fund), as well as interest, statutory damages and attorneys’ fees.