The Austrian Supreme Court has recently found that insolvency related avoidance claims can be sold. This may open a whole new business segment and will most certainly have a material impact on defendants in avoidance proceedings.

Assignability of insolvency related avoidance claims

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.

A financial crisis and situations where insolvency is imminent are not only challenging for a company and its management, but also entail significant liability risks for management in the case of subsequent insolvency proceedings. Payments made after a company has become materially insolvent (i.e. illiquid or overindebted under Austrian insolvency law), but before the 60-day deadline for filing for insolvency has expired, are risky. Which payments are allowed according to the Austrian Supreme Court?

Scope of liability

The list of successful restructurings outside insolvency proceedings is as long as it is confidential. Every year, companies of all sizes are stabilised and sustainably restructured without the stigma of insolvency proceedings. However, until now there has been no European legal framework for pre-insolvency restructurings and only a few national laws explicitly provide for the possibility of such preventive restructurings. This will change now.

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?

It is a well-established principle of bankruptcy law that claims generally crystallize as of the bankruptcy petition date. Of course, section 506(b) of the bankruptcy code allows over-secured, secured creditors to recover post-petition interest and costs, including reasonable legal fees, if their documentation provides them with the right to recover these costs. But what about unsecured creditors – are post-petition legal fees incurred by an unsecured creditor whose contract with the debtor provides for reimbursement of legal fees allowed or not?

Last year, a California Bankruptcy Court wiped out $10.2 million in default interest (“DRI”) when it ruled that a 5% DRI was an unenforceable penalty in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case where the construction lender fully recovered principal, interest, and other costs of collection.