In a decision arising out of Tribune’s 2008 bankruptcy, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently issued a decision affirming confirmation of the media conglomerate’s chapter 11 plan over objections raised by senior noteholders who contended that the plan violated their rights under the Bankruptcy Code by not according them the full benefit of their prepetition subordination agreements with other creditors.

The High Court appointed an examiner to three connected companies involved in the food distribution industry on 27 March 2020 in what was effectively the first examinership of the Covid-19 pandemic period.  Fieldfisher acted on behalf of Wert Capital Ltd which was the parent company for a number of food distribution entities in a successful application for court protection for the Group from their creditors.

As the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic continues to shake global markets, it is likely that more companies will need to restructure to address liquidity constraints, to right-size their balance sheets, or to implement operational restructurings. In addition to a potential surge in restructurings, the spread of COVID-19 is already having pronounced impacts on companies planning or pursuing restructurings, and further market turmoil may cause even broader changes to the restructuring marketplace.

Potential Increase in Restructuring Activity

A Members’ Voluntary Liquidation (“MVL”) is an efficient way to wind up a solvent company and release value to members. It is most often used where the directors wish to retire, the company has realised its potential or the company is dormant. By properly winding up the Company, the danger of the company being involuntarily struck off the Register of Companies and any resulting liability for the Directors is removed. A summary of the process is as follows:

It is almost 30 years since the commencement of the Companies (Amendment) Act 1990 (the “1990 Act”) which introduced the concept of Court protection for certain companies from their creditors to allow a formal restructure of a company’s debt. The examinership process is now governed by Part 10 of the Companies Act 2014 which mirrors the procedure provided for in the 1990 Act.   

Examinership process  

Background

The Applicant, Mr Stephen Wallace was a UK based Liquidator of Carna Meats (UK) Limited (the “Company”). He claimed that his investigations into the Company’s affairs has been impeded by a lack of books and records. The Respondent, Mr George Wallace, was the Company’s former bookkeeper based in Ireland and was identified as holding all of the records of the Company. Despite a number requests from the Liquidator, Mr Wallace did not produce the documents.

The High Court recently considered an application by creditors for directions calling upon a liquidator to reconsider advice he had provided in a report to the ODCE and to carry out further and more forensic investigation into the circumstances which led to the liquidation of the company.

Background

When a company is unable to pay its debts as they fall due, a director’s duties shift from the management of the company for the benefit of the shareholders, to ensuring the company’s creditors are not disadvantaged by the company continuing to trade.

The directors should seek and comply with professional advice from their auditors and solicitors regarding any decision to continue trading for an interim period.

The Supreme Court has just delivered a judgment confirming the entitlement of a judgment debtor to appoint a receiver by way of equitable execution.

The comprehensive judgment is a useful history lesson in the development and expansion of the right to appoint a receiver by way of equitable execution which derives from the old Judicator (Ireland) Act, 1877.

Background

Judgment was obtained by a bank in February 2011 against two borrowers in the amount of €1,064,747.

The U.S. Supreme Court held today in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC that a trademark licensee may retain certain rights under a trademark licensing agreement even if the licensor enters bankruptcy and rejects the licensing agreement at issue. Relying on the language of section 365(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Supreme Court emphasized that a debtor’s rejection of an executory contract has the “same effect as a breach of that contract outside bankruptcy” and that rejection “cannot rescind rights that the contract previously granted.”