On 4 December 2019, the UK Supreme Court issued its decision in MacDonald and another as joint liquidators of Grampian MacLennan's Distribution Services Ltd v. Carnbroe Estates Ltd [2019] UKSC 57, a Scottish case involving insolvency and "gratuitous alienations" (sales at undervalue).

A New Jersey District Court recently addressed several issues in connection with the appointment of a future claims representative (“FCR”). In light of the recent increase in mass-tort bankruptcy cases, exploring these issues is timely.

Background

Background

Following various disputes as to the scope of the collateral given to secured creditors, the debtors and certain of their noteholders jointly proposed a chapter 11. The plan included a rights offering that the consenting noteholders agreed to backstop. These consenting noteholders were granted the right to purchase significant equity of the reorganized debtors at a discount and receive significant premiums for their agreement to backstop the rights offering and support the plan.

Gurbinder Grewal and Michael Wright in the UK Construction Team explain the knock on effects of insolvencies and the mitigating steps that can be taken. Early warning signs of looming insolvency can be spotted.

Key points

Background

A recent decision out of the District Court for the Southern District of New York may bring greater certainty to the interpretation of what constitutes a “financial institution” in connection with the safe harbor in section 546(e) of the bankruptcy code. The decision, In re Tribune Fraudulent Conveyance Litig., 2019 U.S. Dist. Lexis 69081 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.

Merit Management

Sutton 58 Associates LLC v. Pilevsky et al., is a New York case which gets to the heart of the enforceability of classic single-purpose entity restrictions in commercial real estate lending. At issue is how far a third-party may go to cause a violation of a borrower’s SPE covenants, and whether those covenants are enforceable at all.

A Defaulted Construction Loan and Frustrated Attempts to Foreclose:

In Mission Products Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a question that vexed the lower courts and resulted in a circuit split: does the rejection by a debtor-licensor of a trademark license agreement terminate the licensee’s rights under the rejected license?

The Court of Appeal has considered whether interim dividends paid to a shareholder at a time when the company did not have sufficient distributable reserves, making the payments unlawful, could later be reclassified as salary payments.

Facts