Market overview

Introduction & Key Takeaways

The year 2024 ended with some major legal fireworks, as two important courts issued contrasting New Year’s Eve decisions on the validity of “uptier” liability management transactions that have played a large role in corporate debt restructurings for the past several years.

Background

The defining feature of the restructuring plan, which was introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, is the "cross class cram down" ("CCCD") mechanism it introduces as a means of imposing a settlement on recalcitrant creditors.

Overview

Judgment was handed down on 30 September sanctioning the much-trailed restructuring plans for the Cineworld UK group of companies. The sanctioning of the Plans was widely expected, but drama came at the eleventh hour as a result of two last minute challenges brought by UK Commercial Property Finance Holdings ("UKCP") and the Crown Estate (both landlords of Cineworld leases). UKCP and the Crown Estate sought injunctions - not to challenge the Plans in themselves - but to order the removal of their leases from the Plans. 

Overview

Peabody Trust ("Peabody") issued proceedings against National House Building Council ("NHBC") to recover insured extra project costs incurred following contractor insolvency. NHBC sought to short circuit the litigation via an application for summary judgment and strike-out.

On September 10, 2024, the U.S.

To encourage vendors and other creditors to continue doing business with financially distressed entities, the Bankruptcy Code includes various defenses to litigation brought by a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") seeking to avoid pre-bankruptcy payments to such entities. One of these defenses shields from avoidance transfers made to pay debts incurred in the ordinary course of business of the debtor and the transferee.

Mitigating risk of loss associated with a bankruptcy filing should be an element of any commercial transaction, especially if it involves a sale or license of intellectual property rights. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit provides a stark reminder of the consequences of when it is not. In In re Mallinckrodt PLC, 99 F.4th 617 (3d Cir.

Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code's "safe harbor" preventing avoidance in bankruptcy of certain securities, commodity, or forward-contract payments has long been a magnet for controversy. Several noteworthy court rulings have been issued in bankruptcy cases addressing the scope of the provision, including its limitation to transactions involving "financial institutions" as transferors or transferees, its preemption of avoidance litigation that could have been commenced by or on behalf of creditors under applicable non-bankruptcy law, and its application to non-public transactions.

A bedrock principle underlying chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code is that creditors, shareholders, and other stakeholders should be provided with adequate information to make an informed decision to either accept or reject a chapter 11 plan. For this reason, the Bankruptcy Code provides that any "solicitation" of votes for or against a plan must be preceded or accompanied by stakeholders' receipt of a "disclosure statement" approved by the bankruptcy court explaining the background of the case as well as the key provisions of the chapter 11 plan.