Dischargeable Claims

On September 29, 2020, the United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary advanced a Democrat-backed bill to the full chamber that seeks to address perceived shortcomings in the Bankruptcy Code’s protections for employee and retiree benefits and to curtail the use of bonuses and special compensation arrangements for executives in bankruptcy cases.

New regulations deriving from the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 have extended the effective prohibition on statutory demands and winding up petitions until 31 December 2020. Tim Symes, a partner in our Insolvency and Commercial Litigation teams, looks at the implications of this for debtors and creditors.

The Court of Appeal has handed down judgment in a case concerning the Core VCT PLC companies (In Members Voluntary Liquidation) [2020] EWCA Civ 1207. The case concerns an order made to restore three dissolved companies after they went through a solvent liquidation process (ie no creditors still owed money), putting them back into solvent liquidation and appointing liquidators to investigate not only the affairs of the company but also the conduct of the ex-liquidators. The restoration application was made without notice to the ex-liquidators or members.

The UK Government has long been considering significant reforms of the UK’s insolvency framework, even before the advent of COVID-19. The pandemic resulted in the acceleration of those reforms and the passing of the new Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (the “Act”), which came into force in June.

Recently, in In re Tribune Company, the Third Circuit affirmed that the Bankruptcy Code means exactly what it says and that the enforcement of subordination agreements can be abridged when cramming down confirmation of a chapter 11 plan over a rejecting class entitled to the benefit of the subordination agreement, so long as doing so does not “unfairly discriminate” against the rejecting class (and the other requirements for a cramdown are satisfied).

One of the most powerful tools for insolvency practitioners when investigating the affairs of an insolvent company where wrongdoing is suspected is section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA 1986”). This confers power on English courts to order certain categories of parties to produce documents and an account of dealings relating to companies being wound up in the UK.

Everyone, including the least empathic in our society (aka, lawyers), knows that we should seek to uphold the golden rule and “do unto others…” with respect to family, friends, and acquaintances, but does this also apply in the corporate world? Apparently so, as a Delaware bankruptcy court just ruled that preferred shareholders with a bankruptcy-filing blocking right (also known as a “Golden Share”) must consider the effects on other shareholders and all other creditors when exercising such right.

Analyzing the inner workings of the elements required for the securities contract “safe harbor” protection under Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy Court for the SDNY dismissed a complaint seeking to recover approximately US$1 billion in allegedly fraudulent transfers brought against various transferees as part of the Boston Generating Chapter 11 case.

No, says the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in In re Maxus Energy Corp. In Maxus, the defendant, Vista Analytical Laboratory, Inc. (“Vista” or the “Defendant”), a designated critical vendor, sought summary judgement dismissing the preference complaint. The Court denied summary judgement finding that the critical vendor status did not per se insulate Vista from preference actions.

Background