On December 31, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued its long awaited opinion in the disputes arising from the controversial “uptier” transaction executed by Serta Simmons Bedding, L.L.C. (“Serta”) in 2020 and the confirmation of Serta’s chapter 11 plan by the Southern District of Texas Bankruptcy Court in 2023. The Fifth Circuit reversed former Bankruptcy Judge David Jones’ summary judgment ruling that the 2020 uptier transaction was permissible under Serta’s existing credit agreements.

Creditors want to recover as much money as they can from their debtors as quickly and painlessly as possible. When those debtors take steps to delay, defeat and hinder a creditor’s recovery, creditors can rely on the Fraudulent Preference Act, RSBC 1996, c. 164 (“FPA”) and the Fraudulent Conveyance Act, RSBC 1996, c. 163 (“FCA”) to set aside transactions that have that intention and effect. Generally, the FCA allows “creditors and others” to void dispositions of property designed to delay, hinder or defraud their claims.

Breaking with the Third Circuit and the Fifth Circuit, on June 28, 2011, the Seventh Circuit held that a debtor's plan of reorganization that provides for the sale of the debtor's assets free and clear of an existing security interest may only be confirmed over the objection of its secured creditor if the plan's sale procedure permits the secured creditor to credit bid its secured debt for the assets being sold. River Road Hotel Partners, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, -- F.3d --, Nos. 10-3597 & 10-3598 (7th Cir. June 28, 2011).

The Bottom Line:

As many creditors have unfortunately discovered, the Bankruptcy Code allows a debtor to sue the creditor for certain payments – called preferences – that the creditor received from the debtor prior to the bankruptcy.

As the volume of high-profile bankruptcies continues to climb, companies are now in the process of seeking to amend and re-negotiate their credit agreements, or finding new sources of financing in efforts to avoid bankruptcy.

Fortress Credit Corporation (Australia) II Pty Ltd v Fletcher [2011] FACFC 89 concerned the powers of liquidators in Australia.  In 2009, joint liquidators were appointed to Octaviar Limited (Octaviar) and Octaviar Administration (Funder).  Fortress claimed to be a secured creditor of Octaviar under a charge, and was owed approximately $71 million.  The liquidators arranged for Octaviar and the Funder to enter into funding agreements that provided for the Funder to fund an investigation into the actions of Fortress and to commence litigation against Fortress.

Introduction

On 26 November 2010, the Federal Parliament passed the Corporations Amendment (Sons of Gwalia) Bill 2010 (“Bill”). The Bill amends section 563A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (“Act”) such that any claim brought by a person against a company that arises from the buying, selling, holding or other dealing with a shareholding will be postponed in an external administration until all other claims have been paid. The Bill has the effect of reversing the High Court decision of Sons of Gwalia v Margaretic [2007] HCA 1.

Key Points: The High Court held there was no variation in the terms of the Charge and therefore no registration was required.

On 1 September 2010 the High Court handed down its much anticipated decision in the appeal from the Queensland Court of Appeal in Re Octaviar Ltd (No 7) [2009] QCA 282, unanimously dismissing the appeal in Public Trustee of Queensland v Fortress Credit Corporation (Aus) 11 Pty Ltd [2010] HCA 29.

The fixed and floating charge

In brief

A recent decision by the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Buzzle Operations Pty Ltd (in liq) –v- Apple Computer Australia Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 109 provides useful guidance on the key aspects of shadow directorships and to what extent advices can be given by an interested party such as a financial accountant or a lender to a debtor without that interested party falling within the definition of "shadow director".

Background