On 7 December 2022, the European Commission published itsproposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council harmonising certain aspects of insolvency law (COM(2022) 702; 2022/0408 (COD)) (the Proposal). Readers may be aware that the EU has already legislated in the area of insolvency.
The Southern District of New York vacated a bankruptcy court’s judgment holding a debtor’s business competitor (C) “in contempt for violation of the [Bankruptcy Code’s] automatic stay…and assessing sanctions” of $19.2 million. In re Windstream Holdings, Inc., 2022 WL 5245633, *1 (2) (S.D.N.Y. Oct 6, 2022).
The unique circumstances of the last few years (and hard-charging investors) have forced many borrowers without adequate near-term liquidity to engage in more creative and aggressive liability-management transactions. These transactions have often taken the form of "uptiering" financings.
Shareholders are among the many who have lost money in the multi-billion euro insolvency of the former DAX30 payment provider Wirecard and its allegedly fraudulent business practices. Wirecard had to file for insolvency after assets worth €1.9bn could not be found. Collectively, the shareholders claimed around €7bn in damages for intentional capital markets law violations by former Wirecard executives. Unsurprisingly, the shareholders are now trying to minimise their losses and secure at least partial payment on their claims from the insolvency estate.
Four years after New York grocery chain Tops’ exit from Chapter 11, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain ruled that the Tops’ Chapter 11 trustee may proceed with litigation against certain private equity investors. The trustee alleged that the investors drove the company into bankruptcy by paying themselves more than $375 million in dividends while neglecting to address Tops’ unfunded pension liabilities.
“… [B]ecause Congress has not clearly abrogated the solvent-debtor exception,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a reorganized solvent debtor had to “pay what it promised now that it is financially capable.” In re Ultra Petroleum Corp., 2022 WL 8025329, *1, (5th Cir. Oct. 14, 2022) (2-1). Moreover, “given [the debtor’s ] solvency, post-petition interest is to be calculated according to the agreed-upon … contractual default rate …,” not the “much lower Federal Judgment Rate …,” held the court. Id.
As expected, the UK's latest quarterly company insolvency statistics, published on 28 October, follow the pattern of previous quarterly updates this year with the number of insolvencies continuing to rise in comparison with both the equivalent quarter in 2021, and pre-pandemic.
With the temporary insolvency measures implemented under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act no longer in force, the Q3 2022 data shows a significant increase in insolvencies from Q3 2021, with the overall number of registered company insolvencies 40 per cent higher.
The “connections” of the chairman (“W”) of the debtor’s investment bank (“S”) to his family’s foundations do “not give rise to an actual, active conflict of any kind,” held a bankruptcy judge in the Southern District of New York on Oct. 17, 2022. In re SAS A.B., 2022 WL 10189110, *3 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2022). According to the court, it “is only through strained speculation [by the U.S. Trustee] that a potential issue can even be posited.” Accord, In re Harold & Williams Dev. Co., 977 F.2d 906 (4th Cir.
“…[B]ecause Congress has not clearly abrogated the solvent-debtor exception,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a reorganized solvent debtor had to “pay what it promised now that it is financially capable.” In re Ultra Petroleum Corp., 2022 WL 8025329, *1, (5th Cir. Oct. 14, 2022) (2-1). Moreover, “given [the debtor’s ] solvency, post-petition interest is to be calculated according to the agreed-upon … contractual default rate …,” not the “much lower Federal Judgment Rate . . .,” held the court. Id.
The Third Circuit recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s denial of a defendant’s motion to disqualify the plaintiff’s law firm in a large adversary proceeding, holding that it had not abused its discretion because the plaintiff law firm (W) had “complied with” American Bar Association Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.10(a)(2). In re Maxus Energy Corp., 2022 WL 4113656, *4 (3d Cir. Sept. 9, 2022). According to the court, a lawyer (B) who “moved from” the defendant’s law firm “to the [plaintiff’s] firm” was not cause for W (the new firm) to be disqualified.