Over the past few months, Delaware courts have continued to address important M&A and corporate issues. Significant corporate law developments have also arisen from state and federal courts in California. Below are some highlights and practical takeaways related to important developments in Delaware law.

CORPORATE

Advance Notice Bylaws and Board Action Affecting the Stockholder Franchise.

What rate of interest should a debtor pay under a bankruptcy plan?

Executive Summary

Investors in LMA-based intercreditor agreements¹ (ICA) should be reassured by the commercial approach recently taken by the High Court in construing the "Distressed Disposal" provisions (DD Provisions).

Question

Once a Subchapter V debtor is removed from possession under § 1185(a), what happens next?

The answer to this question seems to have evolved over the few years of Subchapter V’s existence:

• from a low-power position for debtor, early-on;
• to a high-power position for debtor, in a re-thought view; and
• then back to the low-power position for debtor, when problems of the re-thought view become evident.

I’ll try to explain.

Early Answer

一、背景介绍

本案1中的被告、破产债务人美国航运公司（United States Lines Inc.，以下简称 USL）在世界各地长期经营庞大的海运业务。公司在美国特拉华州注册成立，后将业务拓展到英国，控股公司为在纽约注册的麦克莱恩工业公司（McLean Industries Inc.）。1986年，USL根据《美国破产法》第11章的规定，于11月24日提出破产申请。同日，美国纽约南区的地方破产法庭（以下简称美国破产法庭）的布施曼（Buschman）法官作出临时禁令并指定债务人托管人。USL的申请内容显示：公司资产共计12.5亿美元，总债务为12.72亿美元，负债金额超过资产的102%。而在英国，其欠下的总债务（已经清算的债务）达到243.4万英镑（包括拖欠原告的债务），资产约为72万英镑，债务超过资产的3倍，严重资不抵债。鉴于此，USL根据《美国破产法》第11章的规定进行重整，并计划完全关闭公司在英国和欧洲的运营。

The equitable mootness doctrine is before the U.S. Supreme Court on a Petition for writ of certiorari. The case is U.S. Bank National Association v. Windstream Holdings, Inc.[Fn. 1]

All who’ve seen an effort to abuse equitable mootness, from a creditor’s view, will appreciate the following information from U.S. Bank’s Petition and from a supporting Amicus Brief of law professors in U.S. Bank v. Windstream.

Addressing an issue of first impression, the Second Circuit held recently that bankruptcy courts have inherent authority to impose non-nominal civil contempt sanctions, including per diem sanctions and attorneys’ fees, arising out of an attorney’s failure to comply with the bankruptcy court’s discovery orders.

In earlier posts, the Red Zone has discussed the Supreme Court’s ruling in Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 142 S. Ct. 1770 (2022), which held that increased U.S.

Every passing month seems to bring with it a new set of “market making” events that consistently catapults the deal and debt financing economy in a new direction. Nonetheless, there are certain trends that the JMBM attorneys on the “financing frontlines” see repeatedly, and this fall seemed as good a time as any to convey them. By sharing these points, we hope to better prepare our friends, colleagues and clients for navigating through the current debt and restructuring markets, in preparation for the months and quarters that lie ahead.

Here’s my take on third-party releases in a bankruptcy plan [not that anyone asked]: