“The discharge of claims in bankruptcy applies with no less force to claims that are meritorious, sympathetic, or diligently pursued. Though the result may chafe one’s innate sense of fairness, not all unfairness represents a violation of due process.”
On March 19, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a unanimous decision[1] affirming that the mutuality requirement of section 553(a) of the Bankruptcy Code must be strictly construed and, therefore, that triangular setoffs are not permissible in bankruptcy.
Before we kick things off, all of the Business Support and Insolvency Team here at Boyes Turner would like to wish all of you a very Happy New Year.
What have we been up to?
The days and nights may well be getting noticeably cooler, but as a team we remain very much at simmer point in terms of the demands of newlyacquired business support and insolvency work and staying on top of recent legislative changes.
Amongst this month's work highlights have been:
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.
As we discussed in our July newsletter, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA 2020) has introduced a new Restructuring Plan, which is similar to existing Schemes of Arrangement. In essence a Court can sanction a restructuring plan which binds a dissenting class of creditors, if that class would be in no worse a position than the most likely alternative.
This was an application by the administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) Ltd for a direction under paragraph 63 of Schedule B1 IA86 that they be at liberty to consent to a request from the company’s directors to distribute surplus funds to the company’s sole shareholder.
The Court has granted one of the first Winding Up Orders under CIGA 2020.
The winding up petition had been issued on 1 May 2020, 8 weeks before CIGA 2020 came in to force, but after 27 April 2020, the date from which CIGA 2020 applies retrospectively. As a result, the petitioner could not have ensured that the winding up petition satisfied the requirements of CIGA 2020, as those requirements were not in existence at the time that the petition was presented.
The liquidators of a subsidiary company had submitted a proof in the CVA of the parent company. The proof was based upon a claim under section 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA86) that certain payments by the parent to the subsidiary had amounted to unlawful preferences of the company. The liquidators appealed against the decision by the supervisor of the CVA to reject that proof.
Following the Insolvency Service’s announcement that it will produce monthly (as opposed to quarterly) company and individual statistics for England and Wales, to assist the Government and the insolvency sector in monitoring the impact of COVID19, the results for July showed that: