In Stream TV Networks, Inc. v. SeeCubic, Inc., 2020 WL 7230419 (Del. Ch. Dec. 8, 2020), the Delaware Court of Chancery held that the assets of Stream TV Networks, Inc. ("Stream"), an insolvent Delaware-incorporated 3-D television technology company, could be transferred to an affiliate of two of Stream's secured creditors in lieu of foreclosure without seeking the approval of Stream's shareholders under section 271 of the General Corporation Law of Delaware ("DGCL") or Stream's certificate of incorporation.

Chapter 11 plans commonly protect a debtor’s key stakeholders that participate in the chapter 11 process from claims arising in connection with the bankruptcy case. The Office of the United States Trustee (the “US Trustee”), the branch of the Department of Justice tasked with monitoring bankruptcy cases, has recently taken aim at limiting the use and scope of these “exculpation” provisions in large restructuring cases across the country.

Background and Standards

Mass tort cases do not usually bankrupt the defendant. But, in the National Prescription Opiate Litigation, three of the defendants have so far declared bankruptcy. The litigation involves the claims brought by thousands of cities, counties, tribes, and other plaintiffs, all consolidated into multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of Ohio (the “MDL”).  Their damages, caused by the opioid epidemic, total in the trillions of dollars.

The High Court has held that an examination conducted pursuant to an order made under s.236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA”) did not attract witness immunity. The result was that the joint liquidators were permitted to amend their particulars of claim to plead a claim for breach of duty relating to false statements made in the course of the examination: Mitchell v Al Jaber [2021] EWHC 912 (Ch).

Dans l'affaire de la Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies du détaillant nord-américain Groupe Dynamite, le Juge Kalichman, siégeant alors à la Cour supérieure du Québec, rend un jugement sur le traitement des taxes de vente pré-dépôt devant être remises par les débiteurs. La Cour exerce son pouvoir discrétionnaire afin de modifier l’ordonnance pour préciser que seules les taxes de vente accumulées ou perçues après la date de l’ordonnance initiale doivent être payées immédiatement aux autorités fiscales.

A week is often described as a long time in politics, and so also (it seems) with the restructuring market.

Last week, we saw significant strides forward with:

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW IN A MINUTE OR LESS

Companies should anticipate the possibility that they will find themselves in a situation where a vendor, customer, or other contract counterparty commences a bankruptcy case pursuant to Title 11 of the U.S. Code (the Bankruptcy Code). The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has caused economic stress to a wide variety of business sectors, and it has underscored the risk that a contract counterparty may file for bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy effect on vendor and supply contracts

The restructuring market has been eagerly anticipating the judgments in the New Look and Regis CVA challenges. The New Look judgment was handed down on 10 May 2021 and the Regis Judgment followed on 17 May 2021. This article briefly sets out the issues in the New Look CVA challenge, the decision of Mr Justice Zacaroli and what this means for the future of CVAs.

Overview of the New Look CVA Challenge

The claim brought by the Applicants (a consortium of compromised landlords) can be summarised briefly under three heads of claim:

In connection with recognition, PT Bakrie’s foreign representative sought an order from the Bankruptcy Court enforcing its Indonesian PKPU Plan. The foreign representative argued that the plan provided a discharge of the debtor, and all other parties, from any liability in respect of the intercompany loans at issue. By seeking enforcement of the PKPU Plan, the foreign representative effectively sought a release of non-debtor third parties from liability to the Objecting Noteholders and others, including in respect of the approximate $161 million stipulated judgment.

This case is a reminder to both debtors and nominees that corporate law formalities must be respected and that the insolvency lens may affect the treatment of connected party transactions in future valuations and restructuring processes.

The Regis landlords made multiple complaints regarding the disclosure and valuation of connected party transactions and the large uniform discount applied to multiple landlords for voting purposes (75%). The only argument found in their favour was the mistreatment of one of the intercompany loans.

Key takeaways -