In the latest decision arising out of long-running disputes over confirmation of the Tribune Company’s Chapter 11 plan, the Third Circuit issued important new guidance concerning the enforceability of subordination agreements in cramdown plans, holding (1) that subordination agreements “need not be strictly enforced” in such plans, and (2) that the relevant comparison, for determining unfair discrimination, need not always be a comparison between the recovery of the preferred class and the dissenting class, but may sometimes entail a comparison between the dissenting class’s desired and act
The UK Government has today announced plans to introduce new legislation which will require mandatory independent scrutiny of 'pre-pack' administration sales, where connected parties, such as the insolvent company's existing directors or shareholders, are involved in the transaction.
The Bottom Line
The Third Circuit, in Artesanias Hacienda Real S.A. de C.V. v. N. Mill Capital, LLC (In re Wilton Armetale, Inc.), 968 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2020), issued a decision with potential implications for creditors who wish to pursue causes of action after a bankruptcy trustee refuses to act on such claims. The Third Circuit held that if a bankruptcy trustee clearly abandons a cause of action, the right of creditors to pursue that cause of action “spring[s] back to life.”
What Happened?
Although the Sunbird scheme of arrangement was approved by the relevant creditors, sanction was refused by Mr. Justice Snowdon, who highlighted:
- a ‘paucity of information provided by the company as part of the scheme process’, and
- a failure to engage with creditors ‘whom the directors clearly felt were irrelevant or would be an obstacle to their plans’.
He remarked that the company’s approach 'fell a considerable distance short of what was required for a fair process'.
Despite commentators’ recent focus on the new Part 26A restructuring plan, introduced in late June by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, the scheme of arrangement under Part 26 of the Companies Act 2006 (“scheme”) remains a popular tool for companies to reach a compromise or arrangement with their creditors and/or its members.
I. Introduction
Complex restructurings are no stranger to colorful facts and unpredictable twists and turns. But few lead to criminal charges. Fewer still involve criminal charges against the chairman of the unsecured creditors’ committee, alleging that he abused his position to benefit himself financially.
The Ninth Circuit, in Blixseth v. Credit Suisse, 961 F.3d 1074, 1078 (9th Cir. 2020), issued a significant decision on the issue of whether nonconsensual third-party releases are ever permitted in Chapter 11 plans. Distinguishing its prior decisions on the topic, the Ninth Circuit permitted a nonconsensual third-party release that was limited to the exculpation of participants in the reorganization from claims based on actions taken during the case.
Statutory Background
New Look's unsecured creditors today approved a company voluntary arrangement that will amend 402 store leases to a turnover rent model, reflecting recent movements in the market towards more flexible lease obligations.
Despite opposition from many landlords, and considerable disquiet in the property industry, it is clear that tenants remain open to using the CVA process to restructure their leases, as a means to address the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.