Building on emerging trends, 2024 has seen a continued rise in the use of equity-linked debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing in Chapter 11 cases.
Recent examples from WeWork and Enviva illustrate how stakeholders are leveraging this innovative tool to drive broader reorganization strategies and outcomes rather than as a mechanism solely providing interim financing to fund a debtor’s operations during the pendency of its bankruptcy case.
WeWork
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.
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.
Building on emerging trends, 2024 has seen a continued rise in the use of equity-linked debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing in Chapter 11 cases.
Recent examples from WeWork and Enviva illustrate how stakeholders are leveraging this innovative tool to drive broader reorganization strategies and outcomes rather than as a mechanism solely providing interim financing to fund a debtor’s operations during the pendency of its bankruptcy case.
WeWork
On May 31, 2024, the chief judge of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) entered General Order M-634, adopting guidelines for combining the processes for Chapter 11 plan confirmation under Section 1129 of the Bankruptcy Code and disclosure statement approval under Section 1125 of the Bankruptcy Code.
2275518 Ontario Inc. v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank, 2024 ONCA 343
On May 6, 2024, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a summary judgment motion decision in favour of The Toronto-Dominion Bank (“TD Bank”) in 2275518 Ontario Inc. v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank, 2024 ONCA 343.[1]
In Bolwell & Anor v NWC Finance Pty Ltd & Ors [2024] VSC 30, the Supreme Court of Victoria clarified that a lawyer will not be a "controller" of property within the meaning of section 9 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) simply because it was retained to act for a mortgagee exercising their power of sale.
This judgment provides comfort to lawyers as it confirms that they will not assume the obligations of a "controller" under the Act solely by reason of them acting in connection with the sale of real property in an insolvency context.
The England and Wales Court of Appeal recently handed down its first judgment relating to a restructuring plan under Part 26A of the UK Companies Act 2006: Re AGPS Bondco Plc [2024] EWCA Civ 24. Restructuring plans were a 2020 innovation in UK insolvency law, as described in our earlier alert.
On January 22, 2024, the chief judge of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York entered General Order M-621 adopting amended procedural guidelines governing prepackaged Chapter 11 cases.
The guidelines provide a comprehensive framework for the administration of prepackaged Chapter 11 cases in the district. Among other things, they recognize and address “Rapid Prepackaged Chapter 11 Case[s],” defined as cases “where the Debtor seeks confirmation of the plan to be granted between one (1) and fourteen (14) days after the petition date.”