The United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari on an issue that has greatly divided Circuit Courts of Appeal – the question of whether an entity that retains possession of a debtor’s property has an affirmative obligation to return that property to the debtor or trustee immediately upon the filing of the bankruptcy petition or risk being in violation of the automatic stay.

2019 has been a busy year for restructuring specialists. Although the UK economy narrowly avoided a recession, a combination of continued domestic and international political uncertainty, decreased consumer confidence and challenging conditions in certain sectors has meant that a number of businesses have gone through restructurings and, in some high-profile cases, insolvency processes during the year.

The Supreme Court, in Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC,¹ issued an unanimous opinion last week, ruling that the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit correctly denied the ability of creditor Ritzen Group Inc.

The United States District Court for the District of Delaware recently affirmed a Delaware bankruptcy court case that held that the mutuality requirement of section 553(a)¹The case declined to find mutuality in a triangular setoff between the debtor, a parent entity that owed the debtor money, and that entity’s subsidiary, which was a creditor.²

A recent bankruptcy court decision out of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, In re Verity Health Sys. of Cal., Inc., Case No. 2:18-bk-20151 (ER) (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2019), is a good reminder of how difficult it is for a purchaser under an asset purchase agreement to get out of the deal by invoking a Material Adverse Effect clause (also known as a Material Adverse Change clause) (an “MAE”).

In a highly anticipated decision issued last Thursday (on December 19, 2019), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held in In re Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC that a bankruptcy court may constitutionally confirm a chapter 11 plan of reorganization that contains nonconsensual third-party releases. The court considered whether, pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011), Article III of the United States Constitution prohibits a bankruptcy court from granting such releases.

Before ingesting too much holiday cheer, we encourage you to consider a recent opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Weil Bankruptcy Blog connoisseurs will recall that, in May 2019, we wrote on the Southern District of New York’s decision in In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation, Case No. 12-2652, 2019 WL 1771786 (S.D.N.Y. April 23, 2019) (Cote, J.) (“Tribune I”).

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has voided its previous near explicit declaration that make-whole provisions are always unmatured interest, and therefore subject to disallowance under section 502(b) of the Bankruptcy Code in Ultra Petroleum.

In this week’s update: The court finds that selfdealing by a director and a share buyback were void, the PERG report on compliance with the Walker Guidelines, the BVCA and EY review private equity portfolio company performance, the QCA reports on AIM company corporate governance and a few other items. 

Court confirms self-dealing by director was void

Being involved with a company which is experiencing financial difficulties is clearly a stressful experience for directors. As well as having to deal with the operational consequences of the company’s distress, directors must ensure that they comply with their duties and obligations under the Companies Act 2006 (CA2006) and the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA1986). Directors of listed entities are in a particularly difficult position, as in addition to those duties they must comply with their obligations to the markets.

Directors’ duties