The judgment of Adam Johnson J in Re Great Annual Savings Company Ltd, (Re Companies Act 2006) [2023] EWHC 1141 (Ch) demonstrates again the rigorous approach the courts are taking in relation to the fulfilment of the conditions required to “cram down” dissenting creditors in restructuring plans as well as in the exercise of the court’s discretion to sanction them.
A claim under s 127 is restitutionary (see Hollicourt (Contracts) Ltd v Bank of Ireland and Ahmed v Ingram), and in a case involving the payment of money is for unjust enrichment (see Officeserve Technologies Ltd v Annabel’s (Berkeley Square) Ltd).
Re Nasmyth Group Ltd (Re Companies Act 2006) [2023] EWHC 988 (Ch) sets out Leech J’s reasons for refusing to sanction a Part 26A restructuring plan.
The company acted as the holding company of engineering subsidiaries in the UK and elsewhere and provided administrative and treasury functions to the rest of the group.
Congress passed the operative texts without noticeable fanfare. From its enactment to today, section 363(k) has entitled a secured creditor to “credit bid” the full amount of the debt owed by a debtor in any sale of the underlying collateral pursuant to section 363(b). That this statutory bequest elicited little debate made imminent sense, for Congress had thereby codified one of secured creditors’ seemingly time-honored rights.
In my earlier posts I wrote about
and
Too many fish in the pond, too many electric birds not yet in the sky
On April 24, 2023, the First Circuit’s opinion in Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin came up for oral argument before the Supreme Court. At issue in this appeal is whether this provision’s “abrogat[ion]” of sovereign immunity “as to a governmental unit,” defined to include any “other … domestic government” in section 101(27), embodies a congressional intention to revoke the sovereign immunity of a Native American tribe with sufficient and obvious clarity to be construed as such a revocation.
The judgment of the Court of Appeal (Newey, Males and Snowden LLJ) in Hunt v Ubhi [2023] EWCA Civ 417 demonstrates the importance of the adequacy of any undertaking in damages given in support of an application for a freezing order and underlines the need for full and frank disclosure.
On April 19, 2023, the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in MOAC Mall Holdings LLC, ruled Bankruptcy Code section 363(m) to be non-jurisdictional, i.e. just a “mere restriction on the effects of a valid exercise” of judicial power “when a party successfully appeals a covered authorization.” Before MOAC, the Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits held section 363(m) to be non-jurisdictional, but the Fifth and Second Circuits had diverged.
Reasoning
There are many cases about the appointment of administrators, not so many about terminating their appointment. Re Central Properties Holdings Ltd (In Administration) [2023] EWHC 829 (Ch) is one.
In In re Schubert, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of an adversary proceeding because the appellants had failed the “person-aggrieved” test for bankruptcy appellate standing. Had they challenged this standard’s existence, two of the three judges likely would have “abrogate[d]” it; the third would have salvaged it. This decision’s dicta represents perhaps the first outright rejection of bankruptcy’s appellate standing touchstone based on the Supreme Court’s analysis in Lexmark International Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S.