The Bottom Line

The Third Circuit, in Artesanias Hacienda Real S.A. de C.V. v. N. Mill Capital, LLC (In re Wilton Armetale, Inc.), 968 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2020), issued a decision with potential implications for creditors who wish to pursue causes of action after a bankruptcy trustee refuses to act on such claims. The Third Circuit held that if a bankruptcy trustee clearly abandons a cause of action, the right of creditors to pursue that cause of action “spring[s] back to life.”

What Happened?

On August 26, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the Bankruptcy Code does not require subordination agreements to be strictly enforced in order for a court to confirm a cramdown plan, so long as the plan does not discriminate unfairly.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg announced on 24 September 2020 (view announcement here) the introduction from 1 January 2021 of an innovative new restructuring process for Australian small incorporated businesses with liabilities less than AUD1 million, which adopts key aspects of the US Chapter 11 bankruptcy process.

In our latest Bankruptcy Byte, Andrew Ditlevsen explains the how, why and what if concerning proof of claims and claim litigation.

IN BRIEF

EIGHTH CIRCUIT BANKRUPTCY MONITOR

Alerts and Updates

The Third Circuit’s ruling in In re Tribune provides important insight on what it means for a plan to unfairly discriminate.

In an important decision issued at the end of August, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in In re Tribune Co., Case No. 18-2909 (3d Cir. Aug. 26, 2020), held that subordination agreements need not be strictly enforced when confirming a chapter 11 plan pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code’s cramdown provision in section 1129(b)(1). In its decision, the Third Circuit also encouraged bankruptcy courts to apply “a more flexible unfair-discrimination standard” and set forth eight guiding principles to aid in that effort.

I. Introduction

Complex restructurings are no stranger to colorful facts and unpredictable twists and turns. But few lead to criminal charges. Fewer still involve criminal charges against the chairman of the unsecured creditors’ committee, alleging that he abused his position to benefit himself financially.

On September 2, 2020, the Fifth Circuit declined to void a fee award of nearly $2.3 million in favor of an employer that had prevailed on its trade secret theft claim against its former employee, because the employee willfully failed to comply with the bankruptcy court’s “extremely explicit” order regarding his objections to the award.

Background