In a decision that may encourage continued sales from suppliers to distressed entities, the Eleventh Circuit in Auriga Polymers Inc. v. PMCM2, LLC1 joined the Third Circuit,2 the only other circuit to directly address the issue, in concluding that post-petition payments for the value of goods received by a debtor within 20 days before the petition date, authorized by 11 U.S.C. section 503(b)(9), do not reduce a creditor's "subsequent new value" preference defense.

I. Preferences in a Nutshell

The court's decision in In re Imerys Talc America, Inc. clarifies the appointment standard for future claimants representatives in the Third Circuit under Section 524(g) of the US Bankruptcy Code.

In a precedential decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the appointment of James L. Patton, Jr. as the legal representative for future talc claimants (FCR) by the bankruptcy court in the Imerys Talc America chapter 11 cases.1

Oliver Fitzpatrick, a partner in the firm’s Business Support and Insolvency team, successfully acted for a company in resisting an application that was made against it by a petitioning creditor for permission to appeal earlier decisions made by Insolvency and Companies Court Judge Barber to (a) dismiss that petition forthwith and (b) have the petitioning creditor pay our client’s costs in dealing with the petition.

Background of the Act

Introduction

When a company commences winding-up, the disposition of its property and the transfer of shares in the company is void, unless the Court otherwise orders. Under what conditions will the Court allow such disposition or transfer? This was the question in Ong Boon Chuan v Tong Guan Food Products Pte Ltd [2022] SGHC 181, when the Singapore High Court was faced with an application for the sale and transfer of shares in an insolvent company ("Company").

A key concern in respect of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) since its inception has been the differential treatment of operational creditors and financial creditors. For context, financial creditors have a purely financial arrangement with the corporate debtor, while operational creditors are those who are owed money by the corporate debtor for the provision of goods supplied or services rendered.

Retired U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert E. Gerber once observed that “issues as to the interplay between environmental law and bankruptcy are among the thorniest on the litigation map.” Difficulties navigating this interplay largely stem from the inherent conflict between the goals of bankruptcy and environmental laws, with the former aimed at providing debtors with a fresh start, while the latter cast a broad net to hold parties (even some innocent parties) responsible for past harm to the environment.

Following an August 4, 2022 memorandum opinion from Judge Brendan L. Shannon of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, a party to a safe harbored contract can qualify as a “financial participant” under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code even where the party was not a financial participant at the time of the transaction.

The Court of Appeal has held that a settlement agreement between a bank and a group of companies which included releases of the parties’ affiliates prevented the companies from later pursuing claims against their own affiliates. Those affiliates were held to include former administrators appointed by the bank and the administrators’ solicitors: Schofield v Smith [2022] EWCA Civ 824.

The Hong Kong court has sanctioned a scheme of arrangement for a Hong Kong-listed, Bermuda-incorporated fertilizer manufacturer based in the mainland. In doing so, the Honorable Mr Justice Harris also warned holders of U.S. denominated debt that where they use offshore schemes of arrangement, they run the risk of individual creditors presenting winding-up petitions in Hong Kong. The view has however been queried in recent U.S. authority.