Introduction

This monthly legal roundup is a compilation of our thought leadership articles and primers published in the month of December 2022 on key legal and regulatory topics. Please click on the access links to read more.

A. INSOLVENCY LAWS

1. Leasehold right: An intangible asset

“The [Subchapter V] Trustee shall— . . . facilitate the development of a consensual plan of reorganization.” 11 U.S.C. § 1183(b)(7).

That’s what we Subchapter V trustees are supposed to do.

Ok, fine. But how are we supposed to do that?

A facilitation tool that many Subchapter V trustees are using is this: Zoom facilitation meetings.

What follows is an explanation of how such meetings can work.

Initial Meeting

In late December 2022, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware issued an opinion affirming the Mallinckrodt bankruptcy court’s November 2021 decision that the debtor could discharge certain post-petition, post-confirmation royalty obligations for the sale of Acthar Gel.

HFW DISPUTES DIGEST 2022 Welcome to our first annual digest, in which we collate our 2022 global HFW LITIGATION and International Arbitration publications in one place. This edition includes updates from the whole Disputes arena across England, AsiaPac, and the Middle East. HFW is one of the world’s largest and most active disputes practices, litigation is in our DNA. We have more than 350 specialist disputes lawyers in offices across the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, and AsiaPac.

In the case of Bankruptcy Hanson, 2022 ONSC 6591,^[1] the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dealt with access to insurance proceeds in the case of a bankrupt professional. The key questions to be decided by the Court were:

Two recent decisions from circuit courts of appeal – the Fifth and Ninth – have addressed a question that does not arise often: in a solvent-debtor chapter 11 case, is the debtor required to pay post-petition interest (commonly referred to as “pendency interest”) to unsecured creditors in order to render such claims unimpaired? And, if so, what is the applicable rate of interest to use? Additionally, a subsequent decision from the Second Circuit, while not ultimately reaching the issue, favorably cited the recent Fifth and Ninth Circuit decisions.

The recent implosion of crypto firm FTX and its affiliates provides a case study for potential crypto exposure under traditional insurance policies. The FTX debacle is described herein is an introduction to a series of four articles on the potential liability exposure and coverage: Silent Crypto for D&O and Corporate Liability Insurance (Part I), Silent Crypto Exposure for Accountants (Part II), Silent Crypto Exposure for Lawyers (Part III), and Crime and Custody Coverage for Crypto Assets (Part IV).

A bankruptcy discharge “does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt– . . . for fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity.” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4).

The effect of this “fiduciary capacity” statute is newly before the U.S. Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari in Spring Valley Produce, Inc. v. Forrest, Case No. 22-502.

The question presented in Spring Valley is this:

It’s often hard to persuade a bankruptcy court to grant a motion for substantial contribution. Any attorney thinking about making a motion should first ask herself two questions. First, has my work benefitted both my client and other creditors? Second, did my work result in more than an incidental benefit to the bankruptcy estate? If the answer to either question is no, then the attorney should forget about making the motion. The time spent on it will be wasted, and the motion will be denied.