Here’s the latest opinion on a controversial question: In re Franco’s Paving LLC, Case No. 23-20069, Southern Texas Bankruptcy Court, (decided 10/5/2023; Doc. 74).

The Question & Answer

Voter apathy is a problem in Subchapter V cases. That apathy is in the form of creditors failing or refusing to vote on a Subchapter V plan. The In re Franco’s opinion addresses this apathy problem head-on.

In the recent decision of FamilyMart China Holding Co v Ting Chuan (Cayman Islands) Holding Corporation [2023] UKPC 33 (FamilyMart),[1] the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (the Board) found that, although an arbitral tribunal does not have the power to determine whether it is just and equitable to wind up a company nor to make a winding u

The ruling emphasises the need to flexibly interpret the prohibition in light of the reasonable grounds of each case

The Supreme Court's decision on the interpretation of the ban on sentences with a reservation of liquidation – numbered 1228/2023 and dated 14 September – has significant practical importance.

Regulatory developments

The regulation of sentences with a reservation of liquidation has significantly changed over the years.

On 25 August 2023, in ECLI:NL:HR:2023:1135, the Supreme Court answered three legal questions relevant to the practice of setoff before and during bankruptcy or a suspension of payments. In this blog, we address the Supreme Court's decisions and consider the implications for legal practice.

In Breanne Martin v. Leslie Gladstone, the Second District Court of Appeal recently decided a case that could reverberate throughout the receivership and bankruptcy industries. This case comes at a propitious moment as bankruptcy proceedings and receiverships – particularly for distressed commercial real estate entities – trend upward in California. Receivers and bankruptcy trustees alike should consider this case before operating a commercial real estate distressed entity.

The Doughertys’ Bankruptcy Proceeding

The original version of this article was first published in the Trilegal Quarterly Roundup 

Key Developments

1. Supreme Court clarifies that under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, creditors hold priority over government dues

1. A crucial element to any scheme of arrangement is the question of how creditors are to be classed for voting purposes. In this regard, while the proper test for the classification of scheme creditors is well established, the increasing sophistication of restructuring deals have resulted in recent decisions that reveal finer aspects to the implementation of this test. This article explores the practical issues that appear to be arising with increasing frequency in relation to the composition of creditor classes. 

I. Introduction

Recently, in the case of Vishal Chelani & Ors. v. Debashis Nanda (Civil Appeal No. 3806 of 2023), India’s Supreme Court (SC) ruled on the interface of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) with the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).

Factual background

1. Since 2017, Singapore has continually revamped and enhanced its corporate debt restructuring mechanisms. One of these enhancements is the introduction of the cross-class cramdown in Singapore’s Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (“IRDA”).

2. The cross-class cramdown is a powerful tool which is intended to prevent minority dissentients from blocking the passage of a scheme of arrangement. It can bind entire classes of dissenting creditors, as long as at least 1 class has voted in favour of the scheme, among other requirements.

In 2016, the regulation concerning small and medium enterprises (“SMEs”) was initially introduced to aid SME owners in managing their debts through rehabilitation processes that safeguard the interests of both debtors and creditors.