- Brexit ripped up the rules on automatic cross-border recognition of formal insolvency proceedings and restructuring tools between the UK and the EU.
- Recognition will now depend on a patchwork of domestic legislation, private international law and treaties and may lead to different outcomes depending on the jurisdiction.
- Cross-border recognition is still achievable but involves careful navigation and a more tailored approach in individual cases to selection of the most effective process and its route to recognition.
Legal landscape
Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code includes an important protection for lenders confronting a sale of their collateral in a borrower’s bankruptcy proceeding – the right to “credit bid" the outstanding amount of their loan. This right also affords opportunistic investors a powerful tool for use in acquiring the assets of a distressed target. For the traditional lender, the right to bid its debt in a sale of its collateral is a backstop that preserves value if no better options present themselves for recovery.
The consequent distress in the market is evident with 9 supplier insolvencies in the last few weeks alone, including Avro Energy, Utility Point and People’s Energy.
Today, 1 October 2021, is important as Ofgem is due to increase tariff caps from that date. This is also the date when the restrictions on petitioning for the winding up of companies on the basis of insolvency will be eased.
Legal landscape – energy regulations
In distressed situations, there are a number of issues to navigate, including:
On the heels of this month’s confirmation of Purdue Pharma’s controversial plan of reorganization which contained third-party releases in favor of the Sackler family members, a new bill has been introduced in the Senate seeking an end to what some critics refer to as “bankruptcy forum shopping.” The bill is a companion bill to H.R.
There have been two recent changes to the insolvency laws in England and Wales relating to winding up petitions1 and Part 1A moratoriums.
Winding up petitions – Relaxation of restrictions
The District Court for the Southern District of New York recently issued an important decision that provides further support for a holistic analysis when applying the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbors.” In Mark Holliday, the Liquidating Trustee of the BosGen Liquidating Trust v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, et al., 20 Civ. 5404 (Sept. 13, 2021), the District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s state law fraudulent conveyance claims against the defendants as protected from avoidance by the “safe harbors” of Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code.
In SolarReserve CSP Holdings, LLC v. Tonopah Solar Energy, LLC, C.A. No. 78, 2021 (Del. Aug. 9, 2021), the Delaware Supreme Court recently dismissed a books-and-records appeal as moot and vacated a judgment issued by the Court of Chancery after appellee Tonopah Solar Energy, LLC (Tonopah) emerged from a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding as a new limited liability company operating under a new limited liability company agreement.
Each week, Crowell & Moring’s State Attorneys General team highlights significant actions that State AGs have taken. Here are this week’s updates.
Monday, August 23, 2021
Medicaid Fraud
The Delaware Bankruptcy Court (“Bankruptcy Court”) recently issued a ruling that provides additional clarity regarding the treatment of “appraisal rights” in bankruptcy proceedings and the scope of section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. In In reRTI Holding Company, LLC, et al., (decided August 4, 2021) the Bankruptcy Court subordinated the general unsecured claims filed by holders of “appraisal rights” in respect of the debtors’ equity (the “Claimants”).
Each week, Crowell & Moring’s State Attorneys General team highlights significant actions that State AGs have taken. Here are this week’s updates.
Monday, July 19, 2021
Bankruptcy