Pooling Orders: Use of Property in a Joint Business

Morgan v McMillan Investment Holdings Pty Ltd [2024] HCA 33("McMillan")

"Where two or more related companies have engaged in a common business enterprise and are being wound up in insolvency, it may be appropriate in certain circumstances for the separate entities of the companies to be disregarded so that they are wound up together as if they were the one company." Harmer Report [854]

Our latest briefing compares recent developments in the APAC restructuring market with those in the UK. Despite APAC's and the UK's divergent monetary policy and growth forecasts, we find that restructuring markets in both regions are seeing very similar themes:

Introducción

Dentro de las resoluciones concursales publicadas este verano vuelven a cobrar especial protagonismo las relativas a los planes de restructuración. La ley 16/2022, de 5 de septiembre, que introdujo los planes en nuestro ordenamiento cumple ahora dos años de vigencia y poco a poco se va formando un nutrido cuerpo de doctrina jurisprudencial.

Dicha doctrina comienza a perfilar límites en la flexibilidad total que se predica de los planes. En concreto en esta edición de las píldoras concursales reseñamos dos nuevas resoluciones clave, que son:

What you need to know

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.

In In re Filene’s Basement, LLC,¹ the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware considered the rejection damages a landlord claimant was entitled to pursuant to Section 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code after the debtor rejected its lease as part of its reorganization plan.