On June 27, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a 5-4 decision rejecting the nonconsensual releases of the Sackler family in the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy case. The split is an interesting alignment of Justices: Gorsuch writing the majority opinion, joined by Thomas, Alito, Barrett and Jackson; Kavanaugh for the dissent, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor and Kagan.
Chapter 11 bankruptcy has long been thought of as anathema to commercial real estate (CRE) lenders. This is due to the debtor-friendly bankruptcy forum, particularly with respect to (i) the up to 18 month exclusivity period during which only the debtor could propose a plan of reorganization and (ii) threats of a "cram-down" plan used to lever concessions from lenders. These provisions can be, and often were, abused by debtors with no real rehabilitative intent using bankruptcy only as a leverage tool.
Executive Summary
In a radical departure from settled case law, the English High Court has eroded the protections of English law creditors guaranteed by the Rule in Gibbs1 .
What matters
This article delves into some key considerations for suppliers when dealing with customers where there may be a risk of non-payment or insolvency circumstances and how a supplier can minimise the risk to their cash flow and business.
What matters next
What matters
This article delves into some key considerations for suppliers when dealing with customers where there may be a risk of non-payment or insolvency circumstances and how a supplier can minimise the risk to their cash flow and business.
What matters next
Executive Summary
Investors in LMA-based intercreditor agreements1 (ICA) should be reassured by the commercial approach recently taken by the High Court in construing the "Distressed Disposal" provisions (DD Provisions).
When does the directors' duty arise to consider creditors' interests in the face of insolvency if a liability is disputed? Hayley Capani and Kate Garcia consider the case of Hunt v Singh and conclude we still don't have all the answers.
The recent sanction judgment gives important guidance on the way in which the court's discretion should be exercised when sanctioning a restructuring plan and considers whether it is necessary for opposing parties to provide valuation evidence of their own .
Key takeaways from the judgment
No worse off test: expert evidence
In its recent judgement in Re Avanti Communications Ltd [2023] EWHC 940 (Ch) ('Avanti') the High Court decided that in some circumstances a charge can take effect as a fixed charge despite the chargor having some flexibility to dispose of assets without the consent of the charge holder.
Background
It is now two years since the 30 April 2021 introduction of the Administration (Restrictions on Disposal etc. to Connected Persons) Regulations 2021 (the "Regulations") and a good time to look back at whether the Regulations have achieved their purpose, what issues remain and what the next two years might look like.
Summary