“(b) Duties.—The [Subchapter V] trustee shall— . . . (7)facilitatethe development of a consensual plan of reorganization.”
- From 11 U.S.C § 1183(b)(7)(emphasis added).
Facilitation is, by statute, a duty of every Subchapter V trustee—something a Subchapter V trustee must do. But the nature and boundaries of the facilitation role have always been fuzzy and, therefore, misunderstood.
My purpose in this multi-part series is to provide observations on the facilitation role.
Following the UK Supreme Court decision in Sequana1 at the end of 2022, the New Zealand Supreme Court has now weighed in on the issue of the duties owed by directors of a company in the zone of insolvency in a long-running case involving the liquidation estate of Mainzeal Property and Construction Limited.2
In In re Nine West LBO Securities Litigation (Case No. 20-2941) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2020), a federal district court denied in part a motion to dismiss claims brought by the Nine West liquidating trustee against former directors (the "Defendants") of The Jones Group, Inc. (the "Company"), Nine West's predecessor, for, among other things, (i) breaches of their fiduciary duties of care and loyalty, and (ii) aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties. The litigation arises from the 2014 LBO of the Company by a private equity sponsor ("Buyer").
Elon Musk recently said he has a "super bad feeling" about the economy, pithily declaring what most financial commentators have been predicting in more technical terms.
In the recent decision of Paragon Offshore, No. 16-10386 (CSS), 2021 (Bankr. D. Del. June 28, 2021), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the court) addressed the issue of whether the Office of the United States Trustee (OUST) could collect its quarterly fees against assets that were previously transferred to a litigation trust (the litigation trust) free and clear of any and all claims, liens and other encumbrances pursuant to a confirmed plan of liquidation.
In a recent decision, Anchorage Capital Master Offshore Ltd v Sparkes [2023] NSWCA 88, lenders to the Arrium Group, a company that collapsed, have lost their appeal regarding the personal liability of the Chief Financial Officer and Group Treasurer. The NSW Supreme Court had previously dismissed the lenders' claims, and the Court of Appeal has now affirmed that decision.
In the case of Anchorage Capital Master Offshore Ltd v Sparkes (No 3); Bank of Communications Co Ltd v Sparkes (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1025 (Anchorage v Sparkes), the Supreme Court of NSW considered the obligations of company officers to sophisticated commercial lending entities, and whether company officers could be personally liable for making misleading statements.
Significance
On Monday, March 10, 2014, the companies that own and operate the Sbarro pizza chain, Sbarro LLC and 33 affiliates, filed for bankruptcy reorganization under Chapter 11 of the federal Bankruptcy Code. The Sbarro companies operate 217 restaurants in the U.S. and there are 582 franchised restaurants, 176 in the U.S. and 406 at international locations.
As expected, the scope of directors' duties whilst a company is in financial difficulties has been the source of further consideration by the Court. The recent case of Hunt v Singh [2023] EWHC 1784 raised the question as to whether, following the Supreme Court decision in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA, a director's duty to take into account the interests of creditors arises where the company is at the relevant time insolvent if a disputed liability comes to fruition.
Some 13 years ago, Lehman Brothers' sudden and unexpected insolvency sent ripples across the banking and financial services market, some of which are still felt today.
The Court of Appeal's decision in the consolidated cases of Lehman Brothers Holdings Scottish LP 3 v Lehman Brothers Holdings plc (in administration) and others1 [2021] EWCA Civ 1523 was the latest in a long line of cases seeking to unwind the issues arising from Lehman Brothers' unexpected collapse.
The background