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.

(This article was originally published in the Australian Restructuring Insolvency & Turnaround Association Journal, Vol. 33 – March 2021)

A liquidator can be exposed personally in litigation. In this article we discuss the risks to a liquidator associated with litigation by examining some recent cases where liquidators have been ordered to pay costs personally. To mitigate these risks, we provide guidance on litigation strategy for liquidators.

Background

The plaintiff was the primary trading entity within a larger group of companies which operated a development and construction business.

The liquidation of the group was complex, with a significant number of claims identified as requiring investigation. Further, ASIC’s allegations of serious misconduct resulted in a significant amount of the liquidator’s time being allocated to assisting ASIC with its investigation.

Problem

This article was originally published in the Australian Restructuring, Insolvency & Turnaround Association Journal (Volume 32 #01 2020)

The first of March marked the second anniversary of the changes to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) permitting an external administrator to assign rights to sue. The Australian Government proposed the reform in the hope that the ‘sale of rights of action may enable the value in such rights to be realised’[1].

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

Recent changes in the Australian regulation of third-party funders will have a dramatic effect on the funding of certain disputes. Although these changes were accompanied by Government and industry commentary that they would not affect litigation funding for insolvency-related claims, this may not be the case for all insolvency funding arrangements.