The Bankruptcy Protector

Imagine this: you sell a product to a company on credit at 8% interest until you are paid, and the company files for bankruptcy before repayment. Or maybe you are a hard money lender that made an unsecured loan at 18% to a company to bridge through hard times, and the company files for bankruptcy. Or maybe you are a secured creditor with a 5% loan on real estate, and after the borrower files for bankruptcy, you discover there is a defect in your mortgage and your lien can be stripped.

The Fifth Circuit recently dismissed an appeal of a confirmation order as equitably moot. The decision was based on three key factors: the appellant hadn’t obtained a stay pending appeal, the plan had been substantially consummated, and practical relief couldn’t be fashioned if the plan was unwound.Talarico v. Ultra Petro. Corp. (In re Ultra Petro. Corp.), Case No. 21-20049, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 8941 (5th Cir. Apr. 1, 2022).

In its recent decision in Walton v ACN 004 410 833 Limited (formerly Arrium Limited) (in liquidation) [2022] HCA 3 (Walton), the High Court of Australia held, in a split decision, that the mandatory public examination power contained in section 596A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) could be used by eligible applicants to examine directors and other officers of a company in external administration, including senior management, external administrators and trustees, about the company’s affairs for the broad purposes of enforcing and promoting comp

The Court of Appeal has held that the Electronic Money Regulations 2011 do not impose a statutory trust in respect of funds received from e-money holders (who nonetheless enjoy priority status in respect of their creditor claims), providing some much-needed clarity on this issue for e-money institutions and their clients.

A link to the judgment can be found here.

Background

Where the key asset of a technology start up is a potential entitlement to an R&D tax refund, the Spitfire decision provides important clarity for financiers of such businesses, as well as for liquidators (and employees) of those businesses which fail.  

Insolvency practitioners will welcome the confirmation that they cannot be expected to be aware of same degree of information as if company was still trading

In the recent Court of Appeal case of Re Ipagoo LLP, the court provided welcome clarity on the status of e-money holders’ claims under the Electronic Money Regulations 2011 (EMR). In brief, the Court of Appeal held that the EMR do not impose a statutory trust in respect of funds received from e-money holders. The court confirmed, however, that e-money holders will still enjoy priority status in respect of their e-money creditor claims (crucially) whether or not their funds have been duly segregated from the general pool of assets, as required under the EMR.

“Good-faith purchasers enjoy strong protection under [Bankruptcy Code (“Code”)] § 363(m),” but the silent asset buyer (“B”) with “actual and constructive knowledge of a competing interest” lacks “good faith,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on April 4, 2022. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. (“ADM”) v. Country Visions Cooperative, 2022 WL 998984 (7th Cir. Apr. 4, 2022).

What do the Dodgers, American Apparel, Rubio’s Fish Tacos, California Pizza Kitchen, MGM Studios, and Pacific Sunwear have in common? Each is an iconic Southern California brand. But that’s not all they have in common. According to statistics, over the last 20 years 143 California based companies having over $32 billion in assets, and over 211,000 employees have filed bankruptcy in Delaware alone. These companies are members of a growing list of California companies that strategically elected to file for bankruptcy outside of California.

When the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) was notified in 2016, one of its most talked about provisions was the limited scope of adjudication and consequently narrow jurisdiction conferred upon the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) in deciding insolvency cases. In fact, the provisions of the Code in respect of financial creditors were viewed by many as draconian and unconstitutional as the NCLT, prior to commencement of insolvency process, is required to only examine a debt and default and nothing else.