Deal structure matters, particularly in bankruptcy. The Third Circuit recently ruled that a creditor’s right to future royalty payments in a non-executory contract could be discharged in the counterparty-debtor’s bankruptcy. The decision highlights the importance of properly structuring M&A, earn-out, and royalty-based transactions to ensure creditors receive the benefit of their bargain — even (or especially) if their counterparty later encounters financial distress.
Background
In early February, a Delaware bankruptcy judge set new precedent by granting a creditors’ committee derivative standing to pursue breach of fiduciary duty claims against a Delaware LLC’s members and officers. At least three prior Delaware Bankruptcy Court decisions had held that creditors were barred from pursuing such derivative claims by operation of Delaware state law, specifically under the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act (the “DLLCA”).
Two recent cases out of the Third Circuit and the Southern District of New York highlight some of the developing formulas US courts are using when engaging with foreign debtors. In a case out of the Third Circuit, Vertivv. Wayne Burt, the court expanded on factors to be considered when deciding whether international comity requires the dismissal of US civil claims that impact foreign insolvency proceedings.
A Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court’s recent appellate decision in Blumsack v. Harrington (In re Blumsack) leaves the door open for those employed in the cannabis industry to seek bankruptcy relief where certain conditions are met.
Key Takeaways
It is a rare occasion that one can be assured with certainty that, if they file a motion with a bankruptcy court, it will be granted. But, in the Third Circuit, that is exactly what will happen if a creditor or other party in interest moves for an examiner to be appointed under Section 1104(c) of the Bankruptcy Code. Once considered to be within the discretion of a bankruptcy court “as is appropriate,” the appointment of an examiner is now guaranteed if the statutory predicates are fulfilled according to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
このたび、森・濱田松本法律事務所アジアプラクティスグループでは、東南・南アジ ア各国のリーガルニュースを集めたニュースレター、MHM Asian Legal Insights第160 号（2024 年 2 月号）を作成いたしました。今後の皆様の東南・南アジアにおける業務 展開の一助となれば幸いに存じます。 ※本レターに記載した円建て表記は、ご参照のために、各現地通貨を現在の為替レー トで換算したものとなります。
マレーシアの Income Tax Act 1967 が改正され、2024 年 1 月 1 日より、一定の会社 の株式の譲渡益はキャピタルゲイン課税の対象となりました。改正後も個人による譲渡 については課税対象外とされていますが、会社等の法人による譲渡の場合は一定の課税 が生じます。 2024 年 1 月 1 日からの譲渡益課税の対象となるのは、以下の会社の株式の譲渡益で す。
Key Takeaways
When a majority of a company’s board approves a tender offer in good faith, can it still be avoided as an actually fraudulent transfer? Yes, says the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, holding that the fraudulent intent of a corporation’s CEO who was a board member and exercised control over the board can be imputed to the corporation, even if he was the sole actor with fraudulent intent.
Background