Weil's Appellate & Strategic Counseling group welcomes you to Weil's SCOTUS Term Review. Here, we summarize and analyze the cases from the 2023 Supreme Court Term that are most germane to our clients' businesses.

On July 2, 2024, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (the “Court”) released its highly anticipated decision in British Columbia v. Peakhill Capital Inc., 2024 BCCA 246 (“Peakhill”) concerning the use of reverse vesting orders (“RVOs”) to effect sale transactions structured to avoid provincial property transfer taxes for the benefit of creditors.

Restructuring Corporate Groups: Transferring Employees under a Scheme

Intersnack Mid Co Pty Ltd(No. 2) [2024] NSWSC 9 ("Intersnack")

Restructuring or consolidating corporate groups may involve a new or different company in the group employing staff. In such a case an order can be made under s 413, Corporations Act ("CA") giving effect to that arrangement including where the staff are employed under an enterprise agreement.

1. Introducción

Este mes son prominentes los autos de homologación de planes de restructuración (en su mayoría no consensuales) que seguimos viendo. En ese mismo campo destacamos la desestimación de la impugnación del ya famoso plan de Torrejón Salud (plan con una única clase) que se ha instaurado como un "leading case" en la práctica. Los recurrentes son condenados en costas.

Todo esto y más resúmenes de resoluciones que nos han parecido interesantes a continuación.

2. Audiencias Provinciales

In Harrington v. Purdue Pharma LP, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize bankruptcy courts to confirm a Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan that discharges creditors’ claims against third parties without the consent of the affected claimants. The decision rejects the bankruptcy plan of Purdue Pharma, which had released members of the Sackler family from liability for their role in the opioid crisis. Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority decision. Justice Kavanaugh dissented, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kagan and Sotomayor.

Many litigators and corporate lawyers view the practice of representing a large shareholder and the company in which it is invested as common practice. In many instances, no conflict of interest will ever materialize such that the shareholder and the company require separate representation. However, in a recent opinion rendered by the United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Virginia (the “Court”), a large international law firm (the “Firm”) was disqualified from representing Enviva Inc.

Today, in Office of the United States Trustee v. John Q Hammons Fall 2006, LLC, the Supreme Court held that debtors who paid fees in bankruptcy cases administered by the U.S. Trustee Program are not entitled to any relief, even though the Court previously ruled that those debtors had been unconstitutionally overcharged. This decision is the culmination of several years of litigation concerning differential fee structures across judicial districts.

This morning, the Supreme Court decided Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., which clarifies that any party with a "direct financial stake in the outcome" of a reorganization has standing as a "party in interest" to object to a Chapter 11 plan. 11 U.S.C. 1109(b). Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Sotomayor held that the debtor's insurer has standing to object even if the plan purports to preserve the insurer's legal rights and thus is said to be "insurance neutral."

Special Purpose Vehicles ("SPVs") – Financing Arrangements

Canstruct Pty Limited v Project Sea Dragon Pty Limited (No. 4) [2024] FCA 112 ("Canstruct")

SPVs are typically incorporated to undertake particular projects either for their holding company or on behalf of joint venturers. The arrangements made to fund the operations of SPVs can have implications for both their directors and their shareholders.

1. Introducción

Siguen siendo llamativas las homologaciones de planes de restructuración con apoyo de una ínfima mayoría del pasivo afectado. Este mes destacamos la homologación de un plan de restructuración para una microempresa aprobado por tan solo el 2,5% del pasivo con extensión de efectos al 97,5% restante.

Esta y otras resoluciones se resumen a continuación.

2. Tribunal Supremo