Add the Eight Circuit to a growing list of courts that have found that a plan of reorganization which proposes better treatment for creditors who have agreed to purchase any leftover securities in an offering (a “backstop agreement”) done pursuant to that plan does not violate the requirement that each claim within a class of creditors receive the same treatment under 11 U.S.C. § 1123(a)(4). In re: Peabody Energy Corp., --- F.3d --- (Docket No. 18-1302) (8th Cir. August 9, 2019).

The Peabody Plan

Earlier this year, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued an opinion in BOKF NA v. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc’y FSB (In re MPM Silicones LLC), Case No. 15-2280, 2019 WL 121003 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2019), which had significant ramifications for senior secured creditors. Much has been written about this decision, so a lengthy discussion will not be undertaken here.

In a significant opinion for oil and gas industry bankruptcies, the Fifth Circuit in In re Whistler Energy II, LLC., No. 18-30940, 2019 WL 3369099 (5th Cir. July 26, 2019), issued a ruling setting forth the circumstances regarding whether an offshore drilling contractor is entitled to an administrative claim after rejection of its drilling contract.

Facts

Back in December of 2017, the Bankruptcy Protector provided a succinct summary of all cases decided post-Jevic through November 17, 2017. In this update, we discuss the cases decided between November 17, 2017 and May 10, 2019.

The chart below includes the case name, date, and citation; a brief description of the nature of the case; and a brief description of how the Court applied the Jevic.

At the very end of a recent opinion, the First Circuit seemingly provided guidance on how bondholders can attack the constitutionality of Puerto Rico’s debt restricting act, PROMESA (The Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act). However, the apparent guidance offered by the First Circuit may only be fool’s gold.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an opinion in Delaware Trust Company v. Morgan Stanley Capital Group, Inc., Wilmington Trust, N.A. (In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.) on June 19, 2019, in which it addressed distributions of assets pursuant to the waterfall provision of an intercreditor agreement in a chapter 11 reorganization.

Section 154 of the Companies Act, No 71 of 2008 (Act) provides that a business rescue plan (BR plan) may provide that a creditor, who has acceded to the discharge of the whole or part of a debt owing to that creditor, will lose the right to enforce the debt or part of it. Furthermore, if a BR plan has been approved and implemented, a creditor is not entitled to enforce any debt owed by the company immediately before the beginning of the business rescue process, except to the extent provided for in the BR plan.

The legal principles relating to execution against movable property are more or less settled, less so the law relating to execution against immovable property. This is mainly because the right to housing is enshrined in s26 of the Constitution and the issue of land has become somewhat emotive and politicised in the recent past.

In many, if not all, commercial transactions, timing is everything, either for a distressed seller or a purchaser stumbling upon a deal that may almost be too good to be true. There is often no time to waste and a deal must be closed as soon as possible. In the haste of closing a deal, whether in the form of a sale of business or a sale of assets, the parties often agree not to comply with the provisions of s34(1) of the Insolvency Act, No 24 of 1936 (Act), each willing to take the risk in not doing so.

Section 34(1) of the Act provides that:

It is trite that the purpose of business rescue proceedings is to rehabilitate companies that have fallen on hard times, with a hope of either rescuing them or to provide a better return to creditors than what they would receive on a liquidation. This was reiterated in the recent Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judgment of Van Staden and Others NNO v Pro-Wiz (Pty) Ltd (412/2018) [2019] ZASCA 7 (8 March 2019).