• In one of the most high-profile and hotly-watched cases in the London restructuring market, on 18 February 2025, the English High Court approved the restructuring plan proposed by Thames Water.
• The Court gave permission to appeal the Court’s order to a group of challenging junior creditors, a subordinated creditor and Liberal Democrat MP Charlie Maynard, with the Court of Appeal due to sit from 11 to 13 March 2025.

Judge Parker of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas recently issued an order in the case of Hilltop SPV, LLC, granting debtor Hilltop SPV LLC’s (“Hilltop”) motion to reject a Gas Gathering Agreement (“GGA”) with counter-party Monarch Midstream, LLC (“Monarch”).[1] This decision allows Hilltop to reject the GGA while allowing Monarch to retain the covenants that run with the land post-rejection.

Among the many financial innovations that came out of the COVID era, non-pro rata uptier transactions as a liability management exercise (“LMEs”) are among the more controversial. While lawsuits challenging non-pro rata uptier transactions are making their way through the courts, two important decisions were recently issued by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the New York Appellate Division.

In In re 301 W North Avenue, LLC, 2025 WL 37897 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2025), a bankruptcy court recently addressed provisions in a loan agreement and limited liability company (“LLC”) operating agreement as to their effect on permitting the filing of a bankruptcy petition. The loan agreement provided that a bankruptcy petition can be filed with the unanimous consent of all members and the consent of the independent director. The agreement further provided that there must be at least one independent director reasonably satisfactory to the lender.

“[T]he appellant would not have acquired priority over other creditors by the sheriff’s levy, for the obvious reason that the right of property in the goods seized under the execution had previously passed” to the assignee under Debtor’s ABC.

• Reed v McIntyre, 98 U.S. 507, 512 (1878).

Facts

The Debtor, in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Reed v. McIntyre opinion, is a merchant.

Before 1998, (i) all student loans from for-profit lenders were dischargeable in bankruptcy, but (ii) student loans backed by the federal government or from non-profits were dischargeable in only these circumstances:

Chapter 11 plans contain various releases -- some in favor of the debtor and some in favor of certain nondebtor third parties. However, while creditors are bound by a Chapter 11 discharge, creditors have options for how to deal with a plan's third-party release.

Key Issues

CHAPTER 11 DISCHARGE

Bankruptcy-remote LLC Agreement Did Not Impermissibly Restrict

LLC’s Right to File Bankruptcy

In re 301 W. North Ave., LLC, Case No. 24-02741 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.

Jan. 6, 2025), the Bankruptcy Court dismissed the chapter 11 case

of a Delaware limited liability company for “cause” under section

1112(b) of the Bankruptcy Code because the company had not been

properly authorized to file for chapter 11 relief. The court found that

the underlying LLC agreement prohibited the company from filing a

The Barton doctrine provides that a court-appointed receiver cannot be sued absent “leave of court by which he was appointed.” Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126, 127 (1881).

On 31 December 2024, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (the "Federal Court of Appeals") ruled that the uptiering transaction conducted by Serta Simmons Bedding LLC ("Serta") did not constitute an "open market purchase", reversing the 2023 summary judgment of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (the "Texas Bankruptcy Court") that rejected the excluded lenders' claims for breach of the credit agreement. The Federal Court of Appeals also reversed the approval of certain plan provisions relating to an indemnity for the uptiering transaction.