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.

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.

Advice that may have served House of Pain in their 1992 hit song, “Jump Around,” to “bring a shotgun” to battle likely does not translate well to plaintiffs in federal litigation contemplating bringing a “shotgun” pleading to court. In this article we explore types of shotgun pleadings identified by courts and outline potential responses to a shotgun pleading.

Shotgun Pleadings and Relationship to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

In May I wrote about a manufacturer of Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) excused from the PFAS Multi-District Litigation in South Carolina because its PFAS-related liabilities might exceed its assets which is something for a Federal Bankruptcy Court to sort out.  At the time I worried that this was only one of many PFAS-related bankruptcies we would be seeing

In recent years much ink has been spilled opining on the so called 'Quincecare' duty of care, and the limits of it (see links to our recent insolvency law updates covering the topic below). The judgment in Barclays Bank plc v Quincecare Ltd [1992] 4 All ER 363 was a first instance decision on Steyn J, in which he found that a bank has a duty not to execute a payment instruction given by an agent of its customer without making inquiries if the bank has reasonable grounds for believing that the agent is attempting to defraud the customer.

On average, the Supreme Court hears a single bankruptcy case each term. But during the October 2022 term, the Supreme Court issued a remarkable four decisions in bankruptcy cases. These decisions, which are summarized below, address appellate issues relating to sale orders, the discharge of claims obtained by fraud, and sovereign immunity issues in two different contexts.

I. Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code is not a jurisdictional provision that precludes appellate review of asset sale orders.

简介

最近在Re Guy Kwok-Hung Lam [2023] HKCFA 9一案中，香港终审法院澄清，如果受争议的呈请债务所涉及的协议载有专属司法管辖权条款（「专属条款」），法院应如何处理清盘及破产呈请。

案情

上诉人于2017年与CP Global Inc（「该公司」）及答辩人订立了一份信贷及担保协议（「信贷协议」）。据此，上诉人向该公司提供定期贷款，答辩人就该公司结欠上诉人的所有款项提供个人担保。信贷协议载有专属条款，就该协议所产生或与之有关的所有法律程序赋予纽约法院专属司法管辖权。

于2020年，上诉人认为发生了信贷协议所指的违约事件，故要求答辩人支付信贷协议项下的未偿还本金及利息。答辩人未有按上诉人的要求还款，因此上诉人在香港针对答辩人展开破产法律程序。另一方面，答辩人在纽约提起诉讼，请求法院求宣告并无发生信贷协议下的违约事件。

答辩人反对在香港提出破产呈请的主要理由之一，是专属条款规定上诉人须首先在纽约法院就双方争议进行诉讼，然后才可在香港展开破产程序。