As discussed in an earlier Legal Update,¹ substantial uncertainty exists over whether companies in bankruptcy are eligible for loans under the Paycheck Protection Program, or PPP, which was established by the CARES Act to support small businesses by offering SBA-guaranteed loans on advantageous terms. Several recent bankruptcy court decisions underscore this uncertainty.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Chapter 11 filing earlier this year has highlighted an issue that is well settled but sometimes overlooked: Unsecured creditors generally have no right to receive immediate payment of their legal fees from a bankrupt borrower, regardless of any contractual rights they might otherwise have absent the bankruptcy.

Intercreditor agreements—contracts that lay out the respective rights, obligations and priorities of different classes of creditors—play an increasingly important role in corporate finance in light of the continued prevalence of complex capital structures involving various levels of debt. When a company encounters financial difficulties, intercreditor agreements become all the more important, as competing classes of creditors seek to maximize their share of the company’s limited assets.

U.S. Bank N.A. v. Village at Lakeridge, LLC, No. 15-1509

InIn re: Delta Petroleum Corp. (Bankr. Del. Apr. 2, 2015), the bankruptcy court (the “Court”) considered competing motions for summary judgment as to whether certain overriding royalty interests (“ORRIs”) constituted (1) mere contractual rights to payment that were discharged by the confirmed chapter 11 reorganization plan or (2) real property interests that were not part of the estate in bankruptcy and, thus, survived the trustee’s challenge.

Did you know that a liquidator of a foreign company may seek the assistance of the Hong Kong Court to obtain orders for the production of information which orders are, in substance, of the type made in Hong Kong windings-up under section 221(3) of the Companies (Winding-up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance?

The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ruled that a lender’s security interest in accounts was not perfected because a reference to “proceeds” in the lender’s UCC financing statement did not expressly refer to “accounts.” The Sixth Circuit surprisingly interpreted the definition of “proceeds”1 in Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code to exclude “accounts”2 (despite and without reference to provisions of UCC Article 9 to the contrary).

A facilitation payment to encourage creditors to vote through the restructuring proposals of creditors’ debts has been held by the High Court not to be an illegal bribe. The court had regard to the fact that the offer of payment was made openly to all relevant creditors, none of whom were prevented from voting on the proposal. As such, where a creditor consented and received the facilitation payment, this was not contrary to the pari passu principle.

The facts

In the much anticipated decision of Belmont Park Investments PTY Limited v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc [2011] UKSC 38 the Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal of Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc (“LBSF”) and in so doing provided clarification as to the scope and application of the anti-deprivation rule (the “Rule”).

On 18 May 2010, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and its associated debtors (together, the "Debtors") filed a further six omnibus objections to claims filed in their Chapter 11 proceedings with the US Bankruptcy Court (the "Objections"). The Objections contain orders prepared by the Debtors on behalf of the US Bankruptcy Court which, if granted, will enable the Debtors to disallow and expunge the claims identified in each of the Objections from the register of claims.