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 Re Dessco Pty Ltd, the Victorian Supreme Court adjourned a winding up application for 50 days to allow time for creditors to vote on a restructuring plan.

Whilst the adjournment was opposed by the Plaintiff, the Judicial Registrar of the Court accepted the assessment formed by the Small Business Restructuring Practitioner that the company was eligible to avail itself of the new regime having regard to the criteria that must be satisfied (and the ‘just estimate’ approach adopted in respect of contingent liabilities) and the interests of the company’s creditors.

A mortgagee may be faced with a situation where the mortgagor becomes bankrupt and the trustee, in which the property then vests, disclaims the mortgaged property. By force of a trustee’s disclaimer, the bankrupt’s fee simple estate escheats to the Crown in the right of the State. When the Registrar of Titles receives a notice of disclaimer from a trustee, a Registrar’s caveat will be recorded over the property.

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.

In the matter of Western Port holdings Pty Ltd (receivers and managers appointed)(in liq) [2021] NSWSC 232, Deed Administrators who were subsequently appointed Liquidators of Western Port Holdings Pty Ltd (the Company) clawed back over $2 million worth of payments made to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) whilst the Company was subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA).

The Federal Court’s recent decision in Kellendonk concerned a $350,000 loan made by the applicants, Mr and Mrs Kellendonk, to Ms Maria Jasienska-Dudek to help her buy a property in Midland, Western Australia (Property). Ms Jasienska-Dudek defaulted under the loan agreement and the parties subsequently entered an informal agreement which, after Ms Jasienska-Dudek became a bankrupt, led to some novel circumstances and a novel application of section 133 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (the Bankruptcy Act).

Cross-border insolvency has ventured into new territory as a judgment is released from the first contemporaneous sitting of the Federal Court of Australia and the High Court of New Zealand.

Section 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (the IPS) confers on Courts wide powers to adjust rights related to companies in external administration. Here, the administrators of a mining group obtained orders approving their entry into a deed to fund the ongoing operation of the group pending sale and limiting their liability under the deed to the company’s assets. The Court accepted the administrators’ evidence that this funding was urgently required to continue the Group’s operations pending a sale, the prospects of which were thereby maximised.