Summary
Retention of key employees is a primary concern of any company that is seeking to survive a restructuring process as a viable operating business. The question is how to ensure that employee retention payments fairly balance the goal of retaining employees who are key to the restructuring against the financial impact on other stakeholders of the implementation of such a program. Beyond that, in the case of a cross-border restructuring, one must be aware of the difference between Canadian and US law on the issue of employee retention.
We have written on other occasions on Civic Partners Sioux City, LLC.
Retired U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert E. Gerber once observed that “issues as to the interplay between environmental law and bankruptcy are among the thorniest on the litigation map.” Difficulties navigating this interplay largely stem from the inherent conflict between the goals of bankruptcy and environmental laws, with the former aimed at providing debtors with a fresh start, while the latter cast a broad net to hold parties (even some innocent parties) responsible for past harm to the environment.
A foreign (non-U.S.) company can be dragged unwillingly into a U.S. bankruptcy case if the bankruptcy court has “personal jurisdiction” over the company.
Introduction
The issue of whether directors, officers, and/or shareholders breached their fiduciary duties to a company prior to bankruptcy is commonly litigated in chapter 11 cases, as creditors look to additional sources for recovery, such as D&O insurance or “deep-pocket” shareholders, including private equity firms. The recent decision in In re AMC Investors, LLC, 637 B.R. 43 (Bankr. D. Del. 2022) provides a helpful reminder of the importance of timing in bringing such claims and the use by defendants of affirmative defenses to defeat those claims.
Courts Begin to Wrestle with the Impact of on a Debtor’s Ability to Recover Estate Property
In a 2021 chapter 15 decision, In re Bankruptcy Estate of Norske Skogindustrier ASA,1 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that foreign law avoidance claims that are sufficiently analogous to claims under section 548(a)(1)(A)2 of the Bankruptcy Code—but not identical—may fall within the intentional fraud exception to the safe harbor provisions of section 546(e)3 of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Safe Harbor”).
The COVID-19 pandemic hit the bottom line of many businesses. Among the hardest hit industries has been the travel industry and, in particular, airlines and aviation companies. Many airlines are still struggling to generate new ticket sales as compared to pre-pandemic levels and average fares remain depressed.1 One industry source predicts that passenger numbers will not return to 2019 levels prior to 2024.2 Compounding this are increased costs of fuel (up 35% so far this year) and other expenses.3