“Were Congress to . . . intervene and expand § 524(g) beyond asbestos cases, bankruptcy would become a more suitable alternative for resolving mass tort cases. Until then, such cases will likely remain problematic under the Code in the face of creditor opposition.”
In a decision likely to have a knock-on effect for future fraudulent transfer defense and valuation litigation, the Delaware bankruptcy court recently ruled that the price agreed in the sale of an oil and gas company closed by market participants represents the reasonably equivalent value for the assets being sold and is more reliable evidence of value than expert testimony prepared for the purposes of litigation.
Key Points
A “pre-pack” is a sale of all or part of a distressed company’s business or assets, negotiated before the company enters a formal insolvency process and executed by the appointed insolvency practitioner immediately after the insolvency process begins.
Revival of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’) proceedings refers to the restoration of the already withdrawn CIRP by a creditor which generally happens upon the breach of the settlement agreement (‘Settlement Agreement’) pursuant to which the application for CIRP also gets withdrawn. In such circumstances, rather than filing for a fresh application for initiation of CIRP, the creditor may seek reviving of the earlier application.
It is worthwhile for creditors to take part in litigation even if the outcome could go against them. This way, they can help prevent the court from issuing rulings sought by colluding debtors and their allies.
When he was appointed by the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Peter D. Russin probably did not expect to have to decide who has rights to the Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok handles associated with social-media-forward energy-drink brands. But that is exactly what Judge Russin did in a recent opinion related to the bankruptcy of “Bang” energy drink’s manufacturer, Vital Pharmaceutical, Inc.
King v Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund [2023] EWHC 1408 (Ch) deals with a number of bases on which Susan King, James King and Anthony King each applied to set aside statutory demands for £219,700.00 made by the Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund. That sum was payable under an interim costs order made against the Kings by Cockerill J following a successful strike out of conspiracy proceedings. Those in turn arose out of a misrepresentation case.
If at first you don’t succeed, try (and maybe try) again.
Basic Facts: Nomenclature and Numbers
When a previously reorganized debtor files a second chapter 11 case, courts and commentators refer to that continued entity’s second reorganization as a “chapter 22.” When a third case follows a second, “chapter 33” is a favored colloquialism; when a fourth, “chapter 44” is the name of choice. In practice, however, industry figures often denominate any repeat bankruptcy as a “chapter 22.”
In the case of Re Guangdong Overseas Construction Corporation [2023] HKCFI 1340, the Honourable Madam Justice Linda Chan recognized and provided assistance to a mainland China appointed administrator over a mainland China company in liquidation despite the administrator's application being outside the scope of the insolvency cooperation mechanism between Hong Kong and mainland China courts. The Hong Kong court affirmed that its jurisdiction to recognize and assist office-holders appointed by a court of another jurisdiction derives from common law.