A recent decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas in In re Walker County Hospital Corporation serves as an important reminder to clients that are purchasing or renewing directors and officers (“D&O”) insurance coverage that the “Insured versus Insured” exclusion must contain the broadest possible exceptions for claims brought against directors and officers following a bankruptcy filing. Without the specific policy language, current and former directors and officers may be exposed to personal liability.

Pooling Orders: Use of Property in a Joint Business

Morgan v McMillan Investment Holdings Pty Ltd [2024] HCA 33("McMillan")

"Where two or more related companies have engaged in a common business enterprise and are being wound up in insolvency, it may be appropriate in certain circumstances for the separate entities of the companies to be disregarded so that they are wound up together as if they were the one company." Harmer Report [854]

A recent decision of the Court of Session has found that a Scottish administration can be declared as ancillary to an insolvency process in another jurisdiction. This means that the insolvency proceedings in one jurisdiction are considered as the main insolvency proceedings, while the ancillary proceedings in the other jurisdiction are restricted to dealing with the company's assets located there.

Background

The Federal Court in Hema Maps Pty Ltd v HemaX Digital Pty Ltd, in the matter of HemaX Digital Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1127, appointed a provisional liquidator to preserve the status quo until the determination of a winding up application. This winding up application was due to a deadlock and an irreparable breakdown in relations between shareholders, and mismanagement of the company.

Key Takeaways

In a judgment issued yesterday (Francis v Gross [2024] NZCA 528), the Court of Appeal unanimously overturned the controversial High Court decision in Francis v Gross [2023] NZHC 1107 and held that purchasers of partly constructed modular buildings (pods) did not have equitable liens (at all, and especially not in priority to secured creditors) over those pods.

A distressed merger and acquisition (“M&A”) is essentially a sub-category of a conventional M&A, which involves sales of shares or assets of companies that are in financial turmoil and these companies are being placed under administration, receivership and/or liquidation. Due to the unprecedented Covid-19 pandemic, distressed M&A transactions have become more common in recent years with companies in financial and operational distress looking to dispose of their assets to better manage high illiquidity as well as reducing over-indebtedness risk.

The Federal Court of Australia recently handed down a landmark judgment against a third party adviser for devising an asset-stripping scheme and breaching the creditor-defeating disposition provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

In a significant development for the crypto industry, a Delaware bankruptcy court has approved a plan for FTX to return more than $14 billion worth of assets to its creditors. The embattled cryptocurrency exchange, which filed for bankruptcy protection in November 2022, previously estimated that it owed creditors around $11.2 billion. The approved plan will see 98% of creditors receiving 119% of the value of their allowed claims as of the bankruptcy filing date, reflecting a remarkable recovery for affected parties.

Recouping Billions for Distribution

Background

The defining feature of the restructuring plan, which was introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, is the "cross class cram down" ("CCCD") mechanism it introduces as a means of imposing a settlement on recalcitrant creditors.

Overview

Judgment was handed down on 30 September sanctioning the much-trailed restructuring plans for the Cineworld UK group of companies. The sanctioning of the Plans was widely expected, but drama came at the eleventh hour as a result of two last minute challenges brought by UK Commercial Property Finance Holdings ("UKCP") and the Crown Estate (both landlords of Cineworld leases). UKCP and the Crown Estate sought injunctions - not to challenge the Plans in themselves - but to order the removal of their leases from the Plans.