In its recent opinion arising out of the Orexigen Therapeutics Inc.

Section 546(e) of the US Bankruptcy Code, which Congress enacted to promote stability and finality in financial markets, provides a safe harbor against the avoidance of certain securities transactions. Since the safe harbor’s inclusion in the original Bankruptcy Code, Congress repeatedly has expanded its protections to a growing assortment of financial transactions involving an increasing array of parties, whose involvement in the transaction may give rise to a defense to certain avoidance actions, including constructive fraudulent transfer claims.

In a move to increase confidence in the insolvency regime, the UK Government has proposed new measures to improve transparency in pre-packaged administration sales where there is a disposal in administration of all or a substantial part of the company’s assets and it is made to a connected party within the first eight weeks of the administration.

Secured lenders are troubled at the recent news that a New York state court judge denied a preliminary injunction request filed in the Supreme Court of New York by a group of dissenting first-lien lenders, seeking to prevent a borrower, Serta Simmons, and certain first-lien consenting lenders from entering into a recapitalization transaction. In exchange for the purchase of the consenting lenders’ debt at a discount, the consenting lenders received new super-priority debt ranking ahead of the non-consenting lenders’ debt.

O Conselho Nacional de Justiça (“CNJ”) aprovou, na 307ª Sessão Ordinária, realizada de forma virtual no dia 31 de março de 2020, orientações para os juízos competentes para processamento de recuperações judiciais, diante do estado de calamidade pública e severo impacto econômico gerados pelo COVID-19.

As orientações foram aprovadas pelo CNJ por meio do Ato Normativo nº 0002561-26.2020.2.00.0000, sob relatoria do Conselheiro Relator Henrique Ávila.

The High Court gave its ruling yesterday in the case of Discover (Northampton) Limited and others v Debenhams Retail Limited and others [2019] EWHC 2441 (Ch), rejecting four of the five grounds on which the Applicants disputed the validity of the company's Creditors Voluntary Arrangement ("CVA"), which was approved by creditors in May 2019.

Both the First Energy Solutions and PG&E bankruptcies have seen proceedings regarding power purchase and similar agreements (PPAs) that raise this question.

Background

Contracts often contain provisions that enable a party to terminate or modify the contract based on the other party's bankruptcy filing, insolvency or deteriorating financial condition. In general, the Bankruptcy Code renders these types of provisions (sometimes referred to as "ipso facto" clauses) ineffective. Specifically, under section 365(e)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code (emphasis added):

Within German contract law, the principle of being bound by a contract (pacta sunt servanda), i.e. the obligation to fulfill agreements, applies. In case of the insolvency of one of the contractual parties, however, exceptions are made. Upon the opening of the insolvency proceedings, the principle of being bound by a contract is modified. 

Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., No. 16-784

Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 546(e), protects certain prepetition payouts by or to financial institutions from clawback by the trustee of the ensuing bankruptcy estate. In particular, the safe harbor protects transfers made by a debtor by or to a broker, financial institution, or similar intermediary in connection with a “securities contract,” unless the transfer was made with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors.

The insolvency challenge rights give the insolvency administrator, under certain prerequisites, access to assets which the debtor disposed of to the detriment of the creditors prior to the filing for insolvency, thus increasing the insolvency estate.