If a debtor seeks to sell, pursuant to a 363 sale, real property as to which it is the landlord under an unexpired prepetition lease, can such property be sold “free and clear” of the non-debtor tenant’s leasehold interest?

Anyone who has walked around a mall in the United States lately or subscribes to any of the usual restructuring newsletters can’t help but wonder whether traditional, store-based retail as we know it will find a way to survive. Is this phenomenon limited to the United States, or is the retail industry facing a global restructuring of its entire business model?

Lenders rejoice. The Second Circuit recently issued its highly anticipated opinion in In re MPM Silicones, LLC, where it held that the appropriate cramdown interest rate in chapter 11 cases is the market rate (so long as an efficient market exists) rather than the formula rate applied by the US Supreme Court in individual debtors’ chapter 13 cases.

The consideration of the issues relating to TOPOIL begins in one of the three breakout sessions. This one considers whether some sort of restructuring process is appropriate and if so which might be the top options and their relative merits.

To date, EU-wide insolvency legislation has focused on resolving conflicts of laws issues between Member States. Now that the Preventive Restructuring Framework Directive (the "Directive")¹ has successfully navigated its way through the Council and European Parliament (albeit with some significant amendments to the original text), all of that is set to change.

1. Nature of process 

Chapter 11 used to effect operational restructuring, deleverage balance sheet, and/or commence asset sale of the business as a going concern

Insolvency Act process primarily used to effect a pre-packaged sale of the business or assets effected by administrators (i.e. external qualified appointees).

In brief

In recent years, it has become common practice in large chapter 11 cases for debtors to include language in their proposed chapter 11 plan which purports to release certain nondebtors from the claims of third parties. Although some third parties may consent to the release—such as by voting in favor of the plan or otherwise electing to do so during the plan solicitation process—circumstances frequently arise in which the debtors seek approval from the bankruptcy court to release nondebtors from third parties’ claims without the consent of the third parties.

This panel discussion at INSOL London 2022, moderated by Debra Dandeneau, Chair of the Global Restructuring & Insolvency Group at Baker McKenzie, explored how rescue financing works in different parts of the globe and provided insights on some issues that alternative capital providers typically face. The panellists also brought a wide variety of experience and views to creating an ideal system that promotes restructuring and rescue financing.

Some of the key takeaways and insights were:

The US Supreme Court has reversed the First Circuit's ruling in Mission Products (Mission Prod. Holdings v. Tempnology, LLC (In re Tempnology, LLC), 879 F.3d 389 (1st Cir. 2018)), thereby allowing the trademark licensee in that case to continue using the licensed trademark despite the debtor trademark licensor's rejection of the underlying trademark agreement in its bankruptcy case.