When a company files for bankruptcy, its creditors often ask the same question: will I get paid? The answer, in part, depends on the priority and proposed treatment of each creditor's claim in the bankruptcy (i.e., who gets paid and in what order).1 In addition to the Bankruptcy Code's other provisions affecting the priority of a claim, the doctrines of recharacterization and equitable subordination can affect the priority of a challenged claim by effectively postponing or eliminating payment on the claim.

Recharacterization

On September 13, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued a highly anticipated decision in the In re: Yellow Corporation, et al. bankruptcy that addressed objections to 11 multiemployer pension funds’ withdrawal liability claims totaling $6.5 billion, where those plans received billions in taxpayer-funded Special Financial Assistance (SFA) provided under the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) that was not included in plan assets for purposes of the withdrawal liability assessments based upon PBGC regulations.

Did you know that bankruptcy trustees are now liable for capital gains tax (CGT) on the sale of real property? Section 254 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) imposes specific obligations on trustees and agents, covering income, profits, and gains of a capital nature in their representative capacity. This has recently taken on new importance for bankruptcy trustees.

What has changed?

We recently blogged (here) about the Privy Council decision of Sian Participation Corporation (In Liquidation) v Halimeda InternationalLtd [2024] UKPC 16 (

Often, after filing a proof of claim, a creditor can go months, or even years, without hearing anything regarding their claim. Then, unexpectedly, the creditor's proof of claim faces an objection, possibly on multiple grounds, with a limited window to respond. A claim objection can raise several important strategic considerations for crafting the best response.

Key Issues

Notwithstanding that the requisite statutory majority was obtained in the relevant creditors’ scheme meeting, the Hong Kong Companies Court refused to sanction a scheme of arrangement propounded by a company that professed to be insolvent in a recent judgment [2024] HKCFI 2216.

The below sets out key considerations when dealing with an extension of an administration at the end of the first-year anniversary.

On August 28, 2024, Judge Gregory B. Williams of the US District Court for the District of Delaware issued a ruling in AIG Financial Products Corporation, Civ. No. 23-573, affirming an order on appeal from the Delaware Bankruptcy Court that denied a motion to dismiss a chapter 11 petition as a bad faith filing.

The High Court has considered whether trustees in bankruptcy are in breach of sanctions by allowing sanctioned Russian creditors to participate in UK insolvency proceedings.

Background

A Russian national, resident in London is subject to bankruptcy proceedings both in Russia and the UK. The bankrupt's creditors include four Russian banks in liquidation in Russia. The UK trustees in bankruptcy applied to the court for directions concerning three main questions:

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: