The recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in Jetivia S.A. and Another v Bilta (UK) Limited (in liquidation) and Ors should make it easier to pursue claims against rogue directors. The Supreme Court held that, in instances where a company has suffered as a result of the unlawful behaviour of its directors, that behaviour cannot be attributed to the company to disallow the company, or its liquidators, from raising claims against directors for breach of their duties.
Background
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on May 4, 2015, affirmed U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert D. Drain’s decision confirming the reorganization plan for Momentive Performance Materials Inc. and its affiliated debtors.1 The Bankruptcy Court’s decision was controversial because it forced the debtors’ senior secured creditors to accept new secured notes bearing interest at below- market rates.
“A corporate insider who personally guaranteed” the debtor’s loan was not liable on a bankruptcy trustee’s preference claim when the corporate debtor repaid its lender, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on May 6, 2015. In re Adamson Apparel, Inc., 2015 WL 2081575 (9th Cir. May 6, 2015) (2-1).
An undersecured creditor (“C”) intending to credit bid at a sale of the debtor’s unencumbered property must give “notice” of its intent to the bankruptcy trustee, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on April 23, 2015. In re R.L. Adkins Corp., 2015 WL 1873137 (5th Cir. April 23, 2015). Affirming the bankruptcy and district courts’ denials of C’s belated request, the Fifth Circuit held that C “failed to exercise” its right to credit bid at a sale of its collateral.
On 29 April 2015 The Insolvency Service of the UK Government published updated insolvency statistics which include a breakdown of insolvencies that occurred in 2014 across various industry sectors including the construction industry. There are separate tables of statistics for England and Wales and for Scotland.
This Alert is one of a series published by Schulte Roth & Zabel that analyzes the report released on Dec. 8, 2014 (“Report”) by the American Bankruptcy Institute Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 (“Commission”), which recommended numerous changes to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (“Bankruptcy Code”).
The insolvency of Scottish Coal Company Ltd ("SCC") has given rise to two recent Scottish Court of Session cases regarding performance bonds – East Ayrshire Council ("EAC") v Zurich Plc (24 June 2014) and South Lanarkshire Council ("SLC") v Coface SA (27 January 2015).
In an August 2014 Alert,1 we reported that (most of) the Banking Recovery and Resolution Directive (‘BRRD’)2 that was adopted on 15 May 2014 was required to be implemented by the EU Member States through local legislation by 1 January 2015.
The insolvency trade body R3 have issued a useful guide to the insolvency process for creditors. The guide can be found here.
A frequent criticism is that the insolvency process (and indeed insolvency practitioners) do not do enough to engage with creditors. Partly this will be because of creditor apathy (who wants to throw good time after bad money?) but partly it is because creditors do not see the insolvency process as being structured to assist them.
On Dec. 8, 2014 the American Bankruptcy Institute Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 (the “Commission”) issued its 2012-2014 Final Report and Recommendations (the “Report”), proposing numerous changes to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (“Code”).