Dishonest debtors are increasingly daring to use court proceedings to fictitiously dispose of funds to pay their debts. They believe that if they obtain a final judgment that orders them, for example, to pay an amount to a third party, the creditor will not be able to contest the payment. But is the creditor completely defenceless? With this article, we are kicking off a series on what to pay attention to and how to react when a debtor initiates court proceedings that may render the debtor insolvent.

When a federal court approves a [bankruptcy] plan allowing someone to put its hands into another person’s pockets, the person with the pockets is entitled to be fully heard and to have legitimate objections addressed.[Fn. 1]

Pop Quiz Question:

Does Insurer, in the following facts, have standing to object to Debtor’s Chapter 11 plan?

Debtor is in bankruptcy because of asbestos lawsuits.

Debtor proposes a Chapter 11 plan that is supported by all constituencies—except one:

If any class of creditors under a chapter 11 plan is "impaired," the Bankruptcy Code provides that the plan can be confirmed by the bankruptcy court only if at least one impaired class of non-insider creditors votes to accept the plan. This "impaired class acceptance" requirement—stated in section 1129(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Code—is straightforward in cases involving a single debtor, or in cases where the bankruptcy estates of several debtors are "substantively consolidated" so that the assets and liabilities of each debtor are deemed to belong to a single consolidated entity.

Corporate restructurings are not always successful for many reasons. As a consequence, the bankruptcy and restructuring laws of the United States and many other countries recognize that a failed restructuring may be followed by a liquidation or winding-up of the company, either through the commencement of a separate liquidation or winding-up proceeding, or by the conversion of the restructuring to a liquidation. Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code expressly contemplates that the status of a recognized foreign proceeding may change, and that a U.S.

Understanding whether a company is insolvent, and the date of insolvency, is essential for directors and accountants who advise companies, as well as liquidators and other parties bringing insolvency-based claims. In understanding these issues, the analysis may need to go beyond establishing present-day liquidity – for example, what impact do long term-debts have on a company’s solvency and how are they used to prove insolvency? Which debts are relevant to the cashflow test? Whether a company is ‘able to pay all its debts’ as and when they become ‘due and payable’?

Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that the reversal or modification of an order approving a sale or lease of assets in bankruptcy does not affect the validity of the sale or lease to a good-faith purchaser or lessee unless the party challenging the sale or lease obtains a stay pending its appeal of the order.

Key Takeaways

On June 6, 2023, the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (the “Court”) confirmed Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC’s (“Serta”) Chapter 11 plan and held that Serta’s 2020 uptiering transaction (the “Uptiering Transaction”) did not breach Serta’s 2016 first lien credit agreement (the “Credit Agreement”).

On May 30, 2023, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit released its long-awaited opinion addressing Purdue Pharma’s confirmed chapter 11 bankruptcy plan. Although the appeal challenged more than one aspect of the plan, the Court’s decision was highly anticipated for its discussion of one topic in particular: nonconsensual third-party releases.

In Depth

THIRD-PARTY RELEASES

Exculpation clauses limiting the liability of certain entities for actions taken in connection with a bankruptcy case are a common feature of chapter 11 plans. However, courts disagree over the permitted scope of such clauses. They also disagree as to whether an order confirming a chapter 11 plan that includes exculpation and third-party release provisions is insulated from appellate review under the doctrine of "equitable mootness."