In In re Nuverra Environmental Solutions, Inc., 834 Fed. App'x 729 (3d Cir. 2021), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit handed down a long-awaited ruling that could have addressed, but ultimately did not address, the validity of "gifting" chapter 11 plans under which a senior creditor class gives a portion of its statutorily entitled recovery to one or more junior classes as a means of achieving consensual confirmation.
Section 365(h) of the Bankruptcy Code provides special protection for tenants if a trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") rejects an unexpired lease under which the debtor was the lessor by giving the tenant the option of retaining possession of the leased premises. Although the provision clearly describes what rights a tenant has if it makes such an election, it does not unequivocally address the extent of the electing tenant's obligations under the rejected lease or any related agreements. The U.S.
In the wake of the Victorian Court of Appeal’s decision in Cant v Mad Brothers Earthmoving [2020] VSCA 198 (‘Cant’), the Supreme Court of New South Wales’ recent decision in Re Western Port Holdings provides further encouragement for liquidators to pursue unfair preference claims with respect to third party payments and payments made during the operation of a deed of company arrangement (DOCA).
Key takeaways
There is longstanding controversy concerning the validity of release and exculpation provisions in non-asbestos trust chapter 11 plans that limit the potential exposure of various parties involved in the process of negotiating, implementing and funding the plan. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Washington recently contributed to the extensive body of case law addressing these issues in In re Astria Health, 623 B.R. 793 (Bankr. E.D. Wash. 2021).
Bankruptcy Code Section 523(a)(2)(A) Dischargeability Cannot be Based on Oral Fraudulent Misrepresentation “Respecting the Debtor’s Financial Condition”
BITE SIZE KNOW HOW FROM THE ENGLISH COURTS
The Commercial Disputes Weekly will be taking a short break, returning on 6 April.
We appreciate that our clients, partners and friends are currently facing unprecedented challenges as a result of the spread of the COVID-19 virus. Click here for a message from our Managing Partners, and here for all of our latest updates and articles on the subject. If you have any questions or require support, please do not hesitate to speak to your usual contact at WFW.
Recently, the Supreme Court in the decision of Arun Kumar Jagatramka v. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. & Anr1 (“Arun KumarDecision”) examined the interplay between liquidation proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) and Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 (“Act”). The issue before the Supreme Court was to decide whether a person ineligible to submit resolution plan under Section 29A of the IBC is barred from proposing a scheme under Section 230 of the Act.
Asenior employee of a company no matter how malfeasant, fraudulent, dishonest, incompetent, or inept they have proved themselves to be in the performance of their role cannot be disqualified under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 unless they were one of the company's directors or shadow directors.
In the world of companies, therefore, disqualification for unfitness following insolvency is the sole preserve of directors and those in accordance with whose direction or instruction the directors are accustomed to act.
In January 2020 we reported that, after the reconsideration suggested by two Supreme Court justices and revisions to account for the Supreme Court’s Merit Management decision,[1] the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stood by its origina
