Section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 continues to be a useful tool available to creditors for challenging transactions at an undervalue.
Section 423 gives the English court the power to set aside a transaction (most notably an asset disposal or a dividend) entered into by a debtor if the value of the consideration received by that debtor is significantly less than the value of the consideration the debtor provides to the other party to the transaction. Creditors ought to bear in mind this power when scrutinising a debtor’s previous actions.
On June 20, 2018, Judge Kevin J. Carey of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware sustained an objection to a proof of claim filed by a postpetition debt purchaser premised on anti-assignment clauses contained in transferred promissory notes. In re Woodbridge Group of Companies, LLC, et al., No. 17-12560, at *14 (jointly administered) (Bankr. D. Del. Jun. 20, 2018).
Summary
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut recently examined a question at the heart of an existing circuit split regarding the consequences of trademark license rejection in bankruptcy: can a trademark licensee retain the use of a licensed trademark post-rejection? In re SIMA International, Inc., 2018 WL 2293705 (Bankr. D. Conn. May 17, 2018).
Latham & Watkins operates worldwide as a limited liability partnership organized under the laws of the State of Delaware (USA) with affiliated limited liability partnerships conducting the practice in France, Italy, Singapore, and the United Kingdom and as affiliated partnerships conducting the practice in Hong Kong and Japan. Latham & Watkins operates in South Korea as a Foreign Legal Consultant Office. Latham & Watkins works in cooperation with the Law Office of Salman M. Al-Sudairi in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Possible application of Section 101(22)(A) to safe harbor’s covered entity requirement raises important questions for future transferee defendants.
Key Points:
• Merit Management raises the possibility that customers of “financial institutions” may qualify for protection under Section 546(e) safe harbor even if they would not otherwise meet Section 546(e)’s covered entity requirement.
• Treating customers of “financial institutions” as covered entities could broaden the scope of safe harbor.
On February 27, 2018, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split regarding the proper application of the safe harbor set forth in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, a provision that prohibits the avoidance of a transfer if the transfer was made in connection with a securities contract and made by or to (or for the benefit of) certain qualified entities, including a financial institution.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that section 1129(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Code – a provision which, in effect, prohibits confirmation of a plan unless the plan has been accepted by at least one impaired class of claims – applies on “per plan” rather than a “per debtor” basis, even when the plan at issue covers multiple debtors. In re Transwest Resort Properties, Inc., 2018 WL 615431 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2018). The Court is the first circuit court to address the issue.
UK-based offshore and subsea oil & gas services company solidifies its position and completes ownership transfer to noteholders in major company milestone.
Venezuela’s initiative is unlikely to set the stage for a restructuring of international obligations in the face of US sanctions.
Key Points:
• US sanctions will prohibit US persons from engaging in a restructuring of Venezuela and PdVSA debts that includes the issuance of “new” long term debt.
• Creditors should expect that enforcement action will follow a default. The outcomes of that enforcement action will affect all stakeholders, whether or not they participate.
Restructuring Announcement