On September 29, 2014, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware affirmed an earlier decision of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in In re Jevic Holding Corp.1 holding that a private equity sponsor was not liable for its portfolio company’s alleged violations of the WARN Act. The District Court ruling is good news for private equity funds and other investors with portfolio companies in distress.

On Monday, the Supreme Court confirmed¹ that bankruptcy courts may hear “Stern-type” matters (such as tortious interference counterclaims) that relate to bankruptcy proceedings, so long as a district court reviews the bankruptcy court’s proposed findings and renders the final decision. Other questions left in the wake of Stern v. Marshall,² however, remain unanswered and will continue to occupy the attention of parties to bankruptcy matters and courts alike.

BACKGROUND: IN THE WAKE OF STERN V. MARSHALL

A recent appellate decision in the Western District of Washington prohibited hedge fund creditors from voting on a debtor’s chapter 11 plan on the basis that the funds did not qualify as “financial institutions” for purposes of the definition of “Eligible Assignee” under the applicable loan agreement.¹ While this counter-intuitive result seems driven by the specific facts of that case, this decision serves as a useful reminder of the importance of carefully reviewing assignment restrictions when purchasing loans in the secondary market.

The French government has recently published a new regulation (ordonnance n°2014-326 dated March 12, 2014) amending France’s bankruptcy law. Its aim is to facilitate further restructurings of French companies, in particular with respect to pre-insolvency consensual restructurings, and to give creditors a greater say in the restructuring process.

PRE-INSOLVENCY CONSENSUAL RESTRUCTURINGS

The Court of Appeal delivered judgment on Monday morning in the much anticipated appeal in Jervis & Others v Pillar Denton & Others on the treatment of rent payable under a lease held by a corporate tenant that enters administration. The case involved the Game Administration.

Chapter 11 has long been used by companies to obtain relief from legacy tort liabilities. There has been a lingering question, however, as to whether chapter 11 can bar claims by tort litigants who were exposed to a hazardous material or defective product before bankruptcy but do not develop injuries until after the case is over. Some debtors have set up trusts and appointed representatives for so-called “future claimants”: this approach can be effective, but may add months or years to a bankruptcy case along with significant cost, business disruption and litigation.

Last week the Court of Appeal finished hearing the long awaited and much anticipated appeal in Jervis and another v Pillar Denton Limited (Game Station) on the hotly contested issue of whether rent is payable as an administration expense. Depending on the decision of the appeal judges this case may trigger a dramatic shift in the way that rent arising during administration is currently treated.

Background 

In the matter of Fuerta Limited, High Court, 22 January 2014

Judge: Mr. Justice Charleton

A recent decision of the High Court has highlighted the interesting area of law that applies when an application is made to wind up a company on the grounds that it is "just and equitable" to do so.

On January 10, 2014, in a closely watched case, Judge George Hodges of the Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina ruled that Garlock Sealing Technologies, Inc.

In a recent opinion on an issue of first impression,¹ the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that foreign entities seeking recognition under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code must, in addition to satisfying the requirements for recognition set forth in that chapter, have a residence, domicile, place of business or assets in the United States.