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.

Bankruptcy Rule 2004 allows the examination of any entity with respect to various topics, including conduct and financial condition of the debtor and any matter that may affect the administration of the estate. Does a subordination agreement that is silent on the use of Rule 2004 prevent the subordinated creditor from taking a Rule 2004 examination of the senior creditor? Yes, says an Illinois bankruptcy court.

Can a profit-sharing provision in a commercial lease survive assumption and assignment by a debtor? Analyzing such a provision, the Third Circuit answered “no,” finding the provision to constitute an unenforceable anti-assignment provision. Haggen Holdings, LLC v. Antone Corp, 739 Fed. Appx. 153 (2018).

Legal and Factual Background

Equitable mootness is a judicially created doctrine often applied in appeals from orders of bankruptcy courts confirming chapter 11 plans of reorganization. In instances where granting relief on appeal would result in overturning the confirmation order and therefore unravelling a substantially consummated chapter 11 plan, appellate courts have, in certain circumstances, abstained from deciding appeals in reliance on equitable mootness.

After Energy Future Holdings (EFH), maybe not so much. The size of the break-up fee approved by the bankruptcy court in EFH was undoubtedly large by any account – US$275 million. But it was approved following all necessary filings, notice and hearings. All parties and counsel involved were highly sophisticated and experienced. The court that approved the fee was the Delaware bankruptcy court, by all accounts one of the most experienced and sophisticated bankruptcy courts in the nation. And there wasn’t even a hint of fraud, misrepresentation or failure to disclose material facts.

Shareholder of a Korean corporation (“Cuzco Korea”), the sole member of a chapter 11 limited liability company debtor (“Cuzco USA” or the “Debtor”), brought an adversary proceeding against the Debtor and others, asserting claims directly, derivatively on behalf of Cuzco Korea and “double derivatively” on behalf of the Debtor. On the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the bankruptcy court for the district of Hawaii was required to consider the impact of Korean law on the derivative claims as well as notions of forum non conveniens.

In a decision widely anticipated by investors in emerging market and distressed debt, the Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of the High Court to refuse to grant an indefinite moratorium on claims under certain English law debts under the Cross Border Insolvency Rules (“CBIR”). In doing so, the Court of Appeal has reaffirmed a long-standing principle of English common law that provides important protection to creditors; known as the Rule in Gibbs, the rule provides that a debt may only be discharged according to its own governing law.

The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently held in In re Woodbridge Group of Companies, LLC that while Rule 3001 of the Bankruptcy Code provides a mechanism for transfers of claims, Rule 3001 is not a substantive provision allowing claims trading for notes with legally valid anti-assignment provisions.

Background

The recent decision of the London Commercial Court in PJSC Tatneft v Gennady Bogolyubov & Ors [2018] EWHC 1314 (Comm) highlights the importance that the Court will attach to full asset disclosure by a respondent to ensure the effectiveness of a freezing order, even in circumstances where the value of a respondent’s assets exceeds the sum frozen by the order.

Freezing Orders: What Are They?

In the recent decision in Carlos Sevilleja Garcia v Marex Financial Limited,1 the Court of Appeal helpfully summarised the justifications for the English law rule against claims for reflective loss and confirmed that the rule applies equally to unsecured creditors of a company as it does to shareholders.

Highlights