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”).
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.
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.
Conventional wisdom suggests there is no requirement that a debtor be “insolvent” to file a case under Chapter 11 or any other chapter of the Bankruptcy Code. No Code provision explicitly imposes such a requirement. Yet in 2023, several courts addressed the issue, and two courts directed the dismissal of massive Chapter 11 cases imposing what may fairly be characterized as an insolvency requirement.
Picture this: You are wrapping up writing a brief, memorandum of law, motion or the like regarding a complex bankruptcy issue. It is a close call, and you are grasping for additional arguments to make to the judge. Now ask yourself: Have I discussed the relevant burden of proof? If not, now ask yourself: Whose burden is it anyway?
The Eighth Circuit recently ruled that avoidance causes of action are property of the bankruptcy estate under § 541 of the Bankruptcy Code and thus may be sold by the trustee or debtor in possession. Pitman Farms v. ARKK Food Company, LLC, et al., No. 22-2011 (8th Cir. August 21, 2023). The ruling reinforces the notion that estate causes of action are assets that can be sold under § 363 of the Code, a practice which has been increasingly used in § 363 sales.
Theintroduction of Subchapter V in 2020 created a new avenue for small business debtors to more efficiently and effectively obtain relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.
This morning, after much anticipation, the Supreme Court has released its judgment in Yan v Mainzeal Property Construction Limited (in liq) [2023] NZSC 113, largely upholding the Court of Appeal's decision, and awarding damages of $39.8m against the directors collectively, with specified limits for certain directors. The decision signals that a strong emphasis on 'creditor protection' is now embedded in New Zealand company law.
In 2020, Congress enacted the Small Business Reorganization Act (SBA), which codified Subchapter V within Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The newly added subchapter is remarkably powerful, and with the new additions from Congress, creates a streamlined process for small businesses to reorganize. After passing the SBA, Congress subsequently increased the applicable debt limits for businesses eligible for Subchapter V, from approximately $2.7 million to $7.5 million, which qualified many more businesses for Subchapter V relief.