In Short

The Situation: When determining and quantifying unfair preference claims in Australia, does the Corporations Act permit liquidators to value transactions forming part of a single "continuous business relationship" (such as a running account) from the point of peak indebtedness, even if doing so disregards earlier transactions that might act to reduce the value of the claim against the creditor?

The Netherlands is planning to adopt new restructuring legislation, allowing for court confirmation of extrajudicial restructuring plans (Wet Homologatie Onderhands Akkoord, or WHOA). The bill combines features of the U.S. chapter 11 procedure and the English Scheme of Arrangement. With its broad range of jurisdiction and flexibility, the "Dutch Scheme" will prove to be an effective addition to the restructuring toolbox for both Dutch and non-Dutch entities, for groups of companies, and with the possibility of automatic recognition throughout the European Union.

In In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., 2019 WL 2535700 (3d Cir. June 19, 2019), a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that adequate protection payments made during a bankruptcy case and distributions under a chapter 11 plan are not distributions of collateral for purposes of a "waterfall" provision in an intercreditor agreement.

Intercreditor and Subordination Agreements

On January 10, 2019, the Italian government approved the Code for Distress and Insolvency (Codice della Crisi d’Impresa e dell’Insolvenza—the "CDI" ) as part of Legislative Decree No. 14 of 2019, to replace the Italian Bankruptcy Law of 1942. With certain exceptions, the CDI will enter into force on August 14, 2020, unless amended by the Italian Parliament prior to the effective date.

Amid the explosion of trading in claims against distressed and bankrupt entities, courts in recent years have issued numerous rulings of interest to both buyers and sellers.

In U.S. Capital Bank N.A. v. Village at Lakeridge, LLC, No. 15-1509 (U.S. Mar. 5, 2018), the U.S. Supreme Court held that an appellate court should apply a deferential standard of review to a bankruptcy court's decision as to whether a creditor is a "nonstatutory" insider. Nonstatutory insiders are creditors who are not specifically designated as insiders under the Bankruptcy Code (such as officers, directors, and controlling shareholders), but who the bankruptcy court determines nonetheless have sufficient influence over a debtor to be deemed insiders.

Among other things, new Federal Law No. 266-FZ (July 29, 2017) (the "Amendment") supersedes provisions concerning the vicarious liability of "controlling persons" for a bankrupt corporate debtor’s obligations set forth in RF Law No. 127-FZ on Insolvency (October 26, 2002) (the "Insolvency Law").

The Amendment defines a "controlling person" as any individual or entity who, during the three-year period preceding the existence of "signs of insolvency" or court approval of a bankruptcy petition, had the power to direct the debtor’s affairs, including the execution of contracts.

On June 27, 2017, the Court granted certiorari n PEM Entities LLC v. Levin, No. 16-492 (U.S. June 27, 2017), in which it will have the opportunity to consider "[w]hether bankruptcy courts should apply a federal rule of decision (as five circuits have held) or a state law rule of decision (as two circuits have held, expressly acknowledging a split of authority) when deciding to recharacterize a debt claim in bankruptcy as a capital contribution." The Court agreed to review the Fourth Circuit’s ruling in PEM Entities, LLC v.

On May 1, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Merit Management Group v. FTI Consulting, No. 16-784, on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals from the Seventh Circuit. The Court's decision could resolve a circuit split as to whether section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code can shield from fraudulent conveyance attack transfers made through financial institutions where such financial institutions are merely "conduits" in the relevant transaction.

Only a handful of courts have had an opportunity to address the ramifications of rejection of a trademark license since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit handed down its landmark decision in Sunbeam Prods., Inc. v. Chicago Am. Manuf., LLC, 686 F.3d 372 (7th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 790 (2012). A bankruptcy appellate panel for the First Circuit recently did so in Mission Prod. Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology LLC (In re Tempnology LLC), 559 B.R. 809 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2016).