An individual ceased trading his Scaffolding firm in Sunderland in December 2019 and immediately began employment with a third party; despite which the enterprising former scaffolder thought it would be a good idea in May 2020 to apply for a £50,000 bounce back loan from HM Government in respect of his previous business. Unsurprisingly, the funds were not applied to the Scaffolding business (which had ceased trading) and instead were used to repay third parties.

Should a claim for appraisal rights brought by a former shareholder of a Chapter 11 debtor be subordinated under Section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code? According to the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, the answer is yes. See In re: RTI Holding Co., LLC, No. 20-12456, 2021 WL 3409802 (Bankr. D. Del. Aug. 4, 2021).

Background

Trillions of dollars of securities are issued on the strength of bankruptcy remoteness and special purpose entities (“SPVs”) intended to be bankruptcy remote. These transactions generally involve hundreds of millions of dollars and investors’ expectations that the SPVs will not be dragged into a potential bankruptcy filing of their non-SPV affiliates.

In a recent opinion, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland dealt with a conflict between the strong presumption in favor of enforcing arbitration agreements and the Bankruptcy Code’s emphasis on centralization of claims. Based on an analysis of the two statutory schemes and their underlying policies and concerns, the Court decided to lift the automatic stay to allow the prepetition arbitration proceeding to go forward with respect to non-core claims.

Background

On 28 June 2021, the English High Court handed down a judgment declining to sanction a restructuring plan proposed by Hurricane Energy PLC, which sought to cram down the dissenting class of shareholders and hand over the control of the company to its bondholders with a debt-for-equity swap diluting the shareholders down to 5% of their existing shareholding. This is the first time that the English court has declined to sanction a restructuring plan (since their introduction almost a year ago in June 2020), and only the fourth time that the cross-class cram down mechanism has been used.

At the recent R3 Scotland Forum[1], experts in the hospitality and leisure sector came together with the restructuring and insolvency profession to discuss the issues the sector is facing as the country emerges from lockdown. The panel discussion which was chaired by Judith Howson, Senior Manager at French Duncan and member of the R3 Scotland Committee was led by Steven Fyfe, head of the Scotland Hotels Divisions within Savills.

The application of sovereign immunity principles in bankruptcy cases has vexed the courts for decades. The U.S. Supreme Court’s opinions on the matter have not helped much. Although they have addressed the issue in specific contexts, they have not established clear guidelines that the lower courts may apply more generally. The Third Circuit took a crack at clarifying this muddy but important area of the law in the case of Venoco LLC (with its affiliated debtors, the “Debtors”).

Background

What is a pre-pack?

Pre-pack is the term used to describe an arrangement whereby the sale of all or part of a company’s business and/or assets is negotiated and agreed before an insolvency practitioner (IP) is appointed, with the relevant documentation being signed and implemented immediately or shortly after the appointment is made.

Following the demise of receiverships, administration is the insolvency process most commonly used to achieve a pre-pack sale.

Why are pre-packs used?

If you thought the popularity of CVA's had been overshadowed by restructuring plans you might have to think again and watch what happens in the coming months. As you will know from the press there are a number of high-profile retail CVA's which are being challenged by landlords – New Look and Regis to name just two.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas recently clarified the administrative expense standard applicable to indenture trustees by holding that they can recover fees and expenses as administrative expenses only when they make a “substantial contribution.” This standard requires a greater showing than “benefit to the estate,” which is the general administrative expense standard. In re Sanchez Energy Corp., No. 19-34508 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. May 3, 2021).

Background