On March 9, 2016, Bankruptcy Judge Shelley Chapman of the Southern District of New York issued her decision on the Debtor’s motion to reject certain contracts in Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation’s Chapter 11 case.^[i] The decision, which allowed Sabine to reject “gathering agreements”

The question of what constitutes “equal treatment” is a question as old as law itself. Though a favored topic by the Aristotles and the Rousseaus of the world, the question is not entirely esoteric. The concept plays a central role in the law of bankruptcy – courts occasionally describe the principle of equitable distribution between similarly situated creditors as one of the “pillars” of the Bankruptcy Code.

In a much-anticipated follow-up to its 2014 decision in Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 738 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2014), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held that there is no irreconcilable conflict between the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Bankruptcy Code.

In Bankruptcy Code Section 363 sales of assets, there are winners and losers. 

Chapter 11 is known as a forum for reorganizing or selling a financially distressed business. If a Chapter 11 reorganization is not possible, a sale of assets may create investment opportunities for strategic buyers, investment banks, and private equity to take advantage of the “distress” normally associated with Chapter 11 to acquire assets at a discount, exemplifying Warren Buffet’s “value” buying.

An individual files a bankruptcy case to have his debts forgiven, or “discharged.” Where that individual is a principal shareholder or officer of a corporate borrower who has guaranteed payment of his company’s loans, those debts can be substantial. An individual guarantor in that dire situation may try to hide assets – his own or those of his company – and then file a bankruptcy case, in an effort to defeat a lender’s right to be repaid.

The Facts

This was an appeal by liquidators to the Court of Appeal from a decision refusing to grant an order that payments made to the respondent directors totalling nearly £450,000 were preferences.

By the time of the appeal, it was accepted that the payments were made within the relevant time and with the requisite intention to prefer.

The High Court has recently demonstrated its right to exercise discretion as to whether an administration order should be made in relation to a company. In Rowntree Ventures v Oak Property Partners Limited, even though the companies were unable to pay their debts and where the statutory purpose of administration was likely to be achieved, the Court exercised its commercial judgment in determining that it was premature to make an administration order.

Background

Lovers of Shakespeare will no doubt recognise the aforesaid phrase. As this is Shakespeare’s 400th birthday year, I thought it apt to borrow one of his most famous phrases.

The use of Shakespeare in a legal article may appear to many readers misplaced. However, the expression does, in my view, capture a serious dilemma facing creditors when trying to invoke what appears to be a cost-effective and quick way of recovering money.

In the recent case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA & others [2016] EWHC 1686, the High Court has held for the first time that a dividend can be challenged as a transaction entered into at an undervalue within the meaning of section 423(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “IA”).

The Facts

The facts of the case are long and complex but for present purposes the pertinent facts are as follows.

Arjo Wiggins Appleton Limited (now Windward Prospects Limited) (“AWA”) was a wholly owned subsidiary of Sequana SA (“SSA”).

Agriculture is a long-term business and most people within the sector are proud of its reputation for straight talking and fair dealing. Debt issues can arise at any stage, but there are particular cyclical problems at the moment which mean that there is more debt-chasing activity, as cashflow pressures intensify.