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.

The Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued a noteworthy opinion for those whose work involves real estate mortgage conduit trusts (REMIC trusts) or utilization of the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbor” provisions. In In re MCK Millennium Ctr. Parking, LLC,¹ Bankruptcy Judge Jacqueline P.

Bankruptcy Judge Christopher S. Sontchi recently ruled in the Energy Future Holdings case¹ that the debtor will not be required to pay the $431 million “make whole” demanded by bondholders upon the debtor’s early payment of the bonds.²

In what may become viewed as the de facto standard for selling customer information in bankruptcies, a Delaware bankruptcy court approved, on May 20, 2015, a multi-party agreement that would substantially limit RadioShack’s ability to sell 117 million customer records.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Wellness International Network Ltd. v. Sharif confirms the long-held and common sense belief that “knowing and voluntary consent” is the key to the exercise of judicial authority by a bankruptcy court judge.1 In short, the Supreme Court held that a litigant in a bankruptcy court can consent—expressly or impliedly through waiver—to the bankruptcy court’s final adjudication of claims that the bankruptcy court otherwise lacks constitutional authority to finally decide.

On May 6, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered whether so-called“Deprizio waivers,”¹ where an insider guarantor waives indemnification rights against a debtor, can insulate the guarantor from preference liability arising from payments made by the obligor to the lender. The Ninth Circuit held that if such a waiver is made legitimately—not merely to avoid preference liability—then the guarantor is not a “creditor” and cannot be subject to preference liability.