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.

Medio 2023 heeft de Tweede Kamer een start gemaakt met de behandeling van het wetsvoorstel voor de (nieuwe) Energiewet. De Energiewet bevat de regels voor de elektriciteits- en gasmarkt en het energiesysteem. Met de komst van de nieuwe Energiewet, zullen de huidige Gaswet en Elektriciteitswet 1998 worden vervangen.

De Hoge Raad heeft zich uitgelaten over de vraag in hoeverre er rekening moet worden gehouden met de draagkracht van een rechtspersoon bij het opleggen van een boete. De zaak waarin deze vraag speelde, gaat over een bedrijf dat is veroordeeld wegens het meermalen medeplegen van valsheid in geschrifte. In hoger beroep heeft het Openbaar Ministerie een boete gevorderd van 135.000 euro.

www.ploum.nl Kwartaalupdate Bestuurdersaansprakelijkheid Q3 2023 1 START IT UP! Introductie Auteurs: Thomas Munnik en Annerieke Meerkerk In het derde kwartaal van 2023 zijn op www.rechtspraak.nl verschillende uitspraken gepubliceerd waarin de ingestelde vordering gegrond was op bestuurdersaansprakelijkheid. In deze Kwartaalupdate Bestuurdersaansprakelijkheid voor Q3 2023 is een selectie gemaakt uit deze uitspraken. De navolgende onderwerpen komen aan bod: 01. Bestuurder aansprakelijk vanwege onjuiste mededelingen? (Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden 5 september 2023) 2 02.

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

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.