On 31 December 2024, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (the "Federal Court of Appeals") ruled that the uptiering transaction conducted by Serta Simmons Bedding LLC ("Serta") did not constitute an "open market purchase", reversing the 2023 summary judgment of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (the "Texas Bankruptcy Court") that rejected the excluded lenders' claims for breach of the credit agreement. The Federal Court of Appeals also reversed the approval of certain plan provisions relating to an indemnity for the uptiering transaction.
On July 31, 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada provided clarity regarding the treatment of administrative monetary penalties and disgorgement orders resulting from securities violations in Poonian v. British Columbia (Securities Commission).
As we enter 2025, we look back on five important decisions that made the news in 2024. Here is the the first case.
The perspective of a landlord
In brief
A tenant's insolvency hits landlords particularly hard. Existing rental securities (e.g., rent deposit, landlord's lien) cannot always cushion the loss of rent and operating costs. Especially in times of the current energy crisis and rising costs, this issue is becoming increasingly explosive. This is demonstrated by the numerous insolvencies in the fashion retail sector, such as Galeria, Peek & Cloppenburg, KaDeWe and Esprit. High rents are often of the main reasons for insolvency.
The general rule in bankruptcy is that a debtor receives a “fresh start” and is discharged from prior debts, but this is subject to certain exceptions. Subsection 178(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) sets out eight classes of debts that are not released by an order of discharge including an exception for debts that arise out of fraud. In Poonian v.
Deal structure matters, particularly in bankruptcy. The Third Circuit recently ruled that a creditor’s right to future royalty payments in a non-executory contract could be discharged in the counterparty-debtor’s bankruptcy. The decision highlights the importance of properly structuring M&A, earn-out, and royalty-based transactions to ensure creditors receive the benefit of their bargain — even (or especially) if their counterparty later encounters financial distress.
Background
In early February, a Delaware bankruptcy judge set new precedent by granting a creditors’ committee derivative standing to pursue breach of fiduciary duty claims against a Delaware LLC’s members and officers. At least three prior Delaware Bankruptcy Court decisions had held that creditors were barred from pursuing such derivative claims by operation of Delaware state law, specifically under the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act (the “DLLCA”).
A Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court’s recent appellate decision in Blumsack v. Harrington (In re Blumsack) leaves the door open for those employed in the cannabis industry to seek bankruptcy relief where certain conditions are met.
It is a rare occasion that one can be assured with certainty that, if they file a motion with a bankruptcy court, it will be granted. But, in the Third Circuit, that is exactly what will happen if a creditor or other party in interest moves for an examiner to be appointed under Section 1104(c) of the Bankruptcy Code. Once considered to be within the discretion of a bankruptcy court “as is appropriate,” the appointment of an examiner is now guaranteed if the statutory predicates are fulfilled according to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
In a welcome clarification for administrators, the UK Supreme Court in the recent case of R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court[1], held that an administrator appointed under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) is not an “officer” of the company for the purposes of section 194(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA).