Add the Eight Circuit to a growing list of courts that have found that a plan of reorganization which proposes better treatment for creditors who have agreed to purchase any leftover securities in an offering (a “backstop agreement”) done pursuant to that plan does not violate the requirement that each claim within a class of creditors receive the same treatment under 11 U.S.C. § 1123(a)(4). In re: Peabody Energy Corp., --- F.3d --- (Docket No. 18-1302) (8th Cir. August 9, 2019).

The Peabody Plan

The U.S. is one of the easiest jurisdictions in the world in which to do business.1 Regulatory barriers are generally low, establishing a branch or business entity is quick and easy, labor and employment laws are much more employer-friendly than in most other developed economies, and the legal system is well-developed and transparent. However, there are certain barriers to entry and challenges to doing business that should be taken into account before investing or establishing operations in the U.S. This publication provides an overview of trade control issues that could limit a non-U.S.

In bankruptcy, a debtor must relinquish assets to satisfy debts. But there are exceptions to this general rule. Certain assets may be exempted from a debtor’s bankruptcy under federal and state law. Other assets, which are subject to a contractual loan agreement and the security interest of a lender, may be “reaffirmed” by a debtor pursuant to a reaffirmation agreement.

This past May, in a highly-anticipated decision, the Supreme Court held in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC that a debtor’s rejection of an executory contract under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code has the same effect as a breach of contract outside of bankruptcy.

The Bottom Line

In Gavin/Solmonese LLC, Liquidation Trustee for the Citadel Creditors’ Grantor Trust, successor to Citadel Watford City Disposal Partners, L.P., et al. v. Citadel Energy Partners, LLC, et al., Ch. 11 Case No. 15-11323; Adv. Proc. No. 17-50024 (Bankr. D. Del. May 2, 2019) (“Citadel”), the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held that creditors of insolvent limited partnerships and limited liability companies do not have standing to sue derivatively on behalf of the company under applicable state law.

In several cases since the seminal 2011 Delaware Supreme Court decision CML V LLC v. Bax, which held that creditors of Delaware LLCs lack standing to pursue derivative claims, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware has expanded the jurisprudence regarding the assertion of derivative claims and alternative entities. Most recently, in Gavin/Solmonese LLC v.

On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the standard for holding a creditor in contempt for attempts to collect a debt from someone who previously received a bankruptcy discharge. In Taggart v. Lorenzen, Executor of the Estate of Brown, et al., 587 U.S. ____ (2019), the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and held that the proper standard to apply to bankruptcy discharge violations was an objective standard.

Merit Management

The United States Supreme Court in an 8-1 decision issued on May 20, 2019, settled a split among the Circuits in holding a debtor’s rejection of a trademark license agreement under Bankruptcy Code Section 365 did not rescind the rights of the trademark licensee under the agreement. In Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, the Court adopted what is known as the “rejection-as-breach” approach, which holds that post-contract rejection a trademark licensee still retains its rights under applicable state law.

This was a Court of Appeal decision which focused on s423 Insolvency Act 1986, as well as the ambit of directors' duties to creditors in a distressed company scenario. The below summary relates to the courts' analysis of the latter issue.

Facts

Appleton Papers Inc (API) was a wholly owned subsidiary of BAT Industries plc (BAT).