Overview: The Fifth Circuit’s highly anticipated decision on December 31, 2024, in the Serta Simmons case has significant implications for borrowers and lenders in financial distress situations. The issue on appeal concerned an uptier transaction, a liability management exercise sometimes referred to as “lender-on-lender violence.” The Fifth Circuit’s opinion addresses the contractual viability of uptier transactions and the enforceability of related indemnities in bankruptcy plans, potentially reshaping the landscape for future financial restructurings.

An involuntary bankruptcy can be a powerful tool in a creditor's arsenal. Involuntary bankruptcies are rarely filed, however, because of the significant risk of liability for the petitioning creditor if the case is dismissed. A creditor considering filing an involuntary bankruptcy must understand the requirements for filing involuntary bankruptcy cases, which are strictly construed and applied, and be mindful of the associated risks.

When a company files for bankruptcy, its creditors often ask the same question: will I get paid? The answer, in part, depends on the priority and proposed treatment of each creditor's claim in the bankruptcy (i.e., who gets paid and in what order).1 In addition to the Bankruptcy Code's other provisions affecting the priority of a claim, the doctrines of recharacterization and equitable subordination can affect the priority of a challenged claim by effectively postponing or eliminating payment on the claim.

Recharacterization

Often, after filing a proof of claim, a creditor can go months, or even years, without hearing anything regarding their claim. Then, unexpectedly, the creditor's proof of claim faces an objection, possibly on multiple grounds, with a limited window to respond. A claim objection can raise several important strategic considerations for crafting the best response.

Key Issues

An assignment for the benefit of creditors (ABC) is a process by which a financially distressed company (referred to as the assignor) transfers its assets to a third-party fiduciary (referred to as the assignee). The assignee is responsible for liquidating those assets and distributing the proceeds to the assignor's creditors, pursuant to the priorities established under applicable law. From the perspective of a creditor, there are many important distinctions between an ABC and a bankruptcy case.

Key Issues

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.