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.

Background

The Times revealed in an article last month that, according to a report from the Audit Reform Lab, a think tank at the University of Sheffield, only a quarter of the 250 largest companies listed on the London Stock Exchange to become insolvent between 2010 and 2022 had a “going concern” warning included by their auditors in what would turn out to be their final set of accounts. Of those companies 38 also declared a dividend in those accounts.

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.

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."

Borrower beware: in times of distress, your credit documents may give your secured lenders an opportunity to “flip” control of your board

Distress happens, even at companies that once appeared financially solid. When it does, the company, its board (which may be controlled by a sponsor in a public or private equity scenario), and its lenders often enter into restructuring discussions in search of a consensual path forward, typically under the terms of a forbearance agreement.

When a company is on the brink of entering into insolvency proceedings the tax impact, understandably, may not be at the forefront of everyone’s mind and so may be overlooked. However, entry into liquidation or administration or the appointment of a receiver can have an adverse impact on, and sever, UK tax groups. This can result in (unexpected) tax leakage and further depletion of assets, adding greater pressure to the distressed situation.

HMRC has recently updated its published guidance on the effect of insolvency on existing VAT groups following appointment of an insolvency practitioner.

The updated guidance

The updated guidance provides that:

Since the implementation of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (the IRDA), liquidators and judicial managers in Singapore have been statutorily authorised to use third-party funding for a range of claw-back actions. They are also able to transfer company assets to funders; to assign the fruits of legal actions to funders; and to grant super-priority to funders.

Is a court order necessary for security interests granted after the appointment of external administrators? Perhaps not.