The ability to assume or reject executory contracts is one of the primary tools used by debtors in a Chapter 11 reorganization. Where a debtor has a contract with a third party that is “executory”—meaning that ongoing performance obligations remain for both the debtor and the contract counterparty on the date of the bankruptcy filing—the debtor can choose to either assume or reject the contract under 11 USC § 365.

Subordination agreements are generally enforced in accordance with applicable non-bankruptcy law in bankruptcy cases. The decision in In re Fencepost Productions, Inc., No. 19-41542, 2021 WL 1259691 (Bankr. D. Kan. Mar. 31, 2021) recognizes limits to this rule. While the subject subordination agreements were generally enforceable, the assignment of Chapter 11 voting rights in such agreements was not.

On 20 May 2021, the UK government published a consultation paper in which it set out its proposals to revise the current regime for insolvent insurers (excluding Lloyd’s underwriters). The proposals seek to clarify and enhance aspects of the existing “write-down” power of the court under Section 377 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

Most corporate bankruptcy filings result in either a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (the Code) or a liquidation under Chapter 7 of the Code. Sometimes, however, neither option is viable and the debtor may need to seek a “structured dismissal” in accordance with Section 349 of the Code. Structured dismissals provide administratively insolvent debtors with a framework to distribute the estate’s remaining assets (without the additional cost of a Chapter 7 liquidation), wind down the estate, and obtain final dismissal of the case.

US Bankruptcy Judge Mary F. Walrath of the District of Delaware entered an order on April 21 in In re Nine Point Energy Holdings, Inc., Case No. 21-10570 (MFW) (Bankr. D. Del. Apr. 21, 2021), finding that Caliber Measurement Services LLC, Caliber Midstream Fresh Water Partners LLC, and Caliber North Dakota LLC (together, Caliber) violated the automatic stay by sending “reservation of rights” letters to third parties that were providing services allegedly in violation of agreements between Caliber and Nine Point Energy Holdings, Inc.

The second webinar in our series brought together WFW Real Estate Partner , George Nicholas, Global Head of Hotels at Savills, Felicity Black-Roberts, VP Acquisitions and Development – Europe and North Africa at Hyatt and Yannis Ermilios, Managing Director – Portfolio Management at Colony Capital. The panel debated the potential for M&A in the hotel sector, as it lined up to be the fastest-recovering of the real estate segments.

BITE SIZE KNOW HOW FROM THE ENGLISH COURTS

The Commercial Disputes Weekly will be taking a short break, returning on 6 April.

We appreciate that our clients, partners and friends are currently facing unprecedented challenges as a result of the spread of the COVID-19 virus. Click here for a message from our Managing Partners, and here for all of our latest updates and articles on the subject. If you have any questions or require support, please do not hesitate to speak to your usual contact at WFW.

With an increase in airline restructuring activity caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, aircraft financiers, lessors and their lawyers around the world have been analysing whether a restructuring plan under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (a ‘Plan’) can be used by debtors to modify, without the creditors’ consent, their obligations under certain leases and security agreements to which the Cape Town Convention applies.

The German Act on the Further Development of the Restructuring and Insolvency Law (Sanierungs- und Insolvenzrechtsfortentwicklungsgesetz – SanInsFoG) took effect on January 1, 2021, transforming the European Restructuring Directive of June 20, 2019 ((EU) 2019/1023) and introducing a self-administrated restructuring option outside the standard insolvency proceeding.

The Pre-Insolvency Restructuring Plan

The US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has ruled that proceeds from property that was fraudulently transferred cannot be recovered under Section 550 of the Bankruptcy Code.[1] This decision limits a subsequent recipient’s exposure where the initial transferee of the property had altered the form of the property that was initially received prior to transferring it to that subsequent recipient.