Welcome back to Distressed Debt Legal Insights, Ropes & Gray’s source of timely insights for professionals navigating the complex world of liability management and special situations finance. In this issue we will provide a summary of certain aspects of the noteholder litigation in Wesco that culminated in the recent district court decision approving the 2022 uptier transaction and reversing the bankruptcy court’s decision.
The Original Transaction
In this issue, we spotlight the unfolding litigation between the UCC and Oaktree in TPI Composites’ ongoing bankruptcy, which appears to be headed for a settlement. This case is unusual in that the uptier transformed former equity holders into senior creditors rather than elevating existing lenders.
The Unsecured Creditors Committee Challenge
Welcome back to Distressed Debt Legal Insights, Ropes & Gray’s new source of timely insights for professionals navigating the complex world of liability management. In this edition, we’re looking at how Anthology resolved an objection to its proposed non-pro rata DIP rollup.
Background
Anthology filed for Chapter 11 on Sept. 29 in the Southern District of Texas with a restructuring support agreement signed by 87% of first out lenders and 68% of second out lenders.
On July 31, 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Poonian v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), on whether financial sanctions imposed by securities regulators are dischargeable through bankruptcy. The decision resolves a conflict between Alberta and B.C. jurisprudence and will have a significant impact on the treatment of all administrative orders in bankruptcy proceedings.
The facts
Section 192 of the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) provides a flexible tool that allows corporations to achieve important change and undertake various corporate transactions, subject to court approval and oversight. This article aims to provide an update on the Québec courts’ acceptance of virtual securityholder meetings and approach to the solvency requirement.
Overview of the arrangement process
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).
In this client alert, we set out the key findings by the Court of Appeal in Darty Holdings SAS v Geoffrey Carton-Kelly [2023] EWCA Civ 1135, which considers an appeal against the High Court decision that a repayment by Comet Group plc (“Comet”) of £115 million of unsecured intra-group debt to Kesa International Ltd (“KIL”) was a preference under section 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”).
Background to the Case
Whilst commonplace in the U.S., uptier transactions in which a borrower teams up with a subset of creditors to issue new “super priority” debt by amending or exchanging existing debt documents, have not been widely used in Europe.
However, with increasing macro economic pressures and financial market instability, we may see more European borrowers taking advantage of flexibility in cov-lite debt documentation to implement liability management transactions as an alternative to, or even as part of, more formal restructurings.
Employee terminations and downsizing are features of most restructurings. While employees can typically assert a claim in the insolvency process, parallel claims and complaints with labour relations regulators and tribunals are relatively common. In a recent judgment, the Superior Court of Québec clarified that all employee claims can be extinguished through a plan of arrangement under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), including those filed before regulators and tribunals.
This week, the Ninth Circuit addresses whether text messages can violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s prohibition on “prerecorded voice” messages, and it considers whether debtors who paid statutory fees under an unconstitutionally nonuniform bankruptcy provision are entitled to a refund.