Disagreement regarding the interpretation of section 365(c) of the Bankruptcy Code has led to divergent rulings among the bankruptcy and federal circuit courts regarding whether a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor can assume an executory contract or unexpired lease that is unassignable under applicable non-bankruptcy law without the counterparty's consent—even where the debtor has no intention of assigning the agreement to a third party.

The current environment of higher interest rates and high inflation may have a deleterious effect on the retail industry. Although the fear of interest rates and inflation continuing to rise appears to have tapered off, both are still relatively high in comparison to the past twenty-year period. Each on its own can have a negative impact on the retail industry, and unfortunately, both combined can present enough challenges to a retail businesses to force them to change strategies for long-term survival.

When a company files for bankruptcy, its creditors often ask the same question: will I get paid? The answer, in part, depends on the priority and proposed treatment of each creditor's claim in the bankruptcy (i.e., who gets paid and in what order).1 In addition to the Bankruptcy Code's other provisions affecting the priority of a claim, the doctrines of recharacterization and equitable subordination can affect the priority of a challenged claim by effectively postponing or eliminating payment on the claim.

Recharacterization

Be careful when you sell intellectual property (“IP”) in return for future royalty payments. You may think your contract is airtight, guaranteeing you a future annuity on the sales of product relating to your IP, but that might not be the case if your buyer files for bankruptcy.

Question: What happens when a Chapter 7 debtor:

• fails to disclose the existence of claims against third parties;
• receives a Chapter 7 discharge and a closing of the Chapter 7 case;
• then, pursues the undisclosed claims by filing a lawsuit against the third parties; and
• the defendants in that lawsuit move to dismiss debtor’s claim for non-disclosure in the Chapter 7 bankruptcy?

That actually happened—and a U.S. District Court refused to dismiss the debtor’s lawsuit on summary judgment:

“A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1192 [Subchapter V], 1228(a), 1228(b), or 1328(b) of this title does not dischargean individual debtor from any debt— . . .”

11 U.S.C. § 523(a) (emphasis added).

Bankruptcy courts applying the foregoing language in the early days of Subchapter V found such language to be clear and unambiguous: that only “an individual debtor” is affected.

In an opinion issued on August 16, 2024 (In re Robertshaw US Holding Corp., Bankr. S.D. Tex., Case No. 24-90052, Docket No.

The general rule is that claims of the bankruptcy estate against third parties (e.g., preference claims and tort claims) can be sold to third parties in a § 363 sale.[Fn. 1]

However, a recent opinion from the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals discusses whether a state’s champerty law impairs a § 363 sale.[Fn. 2] 

昨今、ケイマン諸島の判決で、債権者との間のスキーム・オブ・アレンジメントを取り扱ったRe In the Matter of E-House (China) Enterprise Holdings Limited [1]において、セガル裁判官が米国、英国、ヨーロッパにおける制裁措置がスキーム・オブ・アレンジメントにどのような潜在的な法的影響をもたらすか、また、当該スキームが国際的にどのような法的効果を有するのかを明確にする判断を示しました。

現在のマクロ経済環境およびグローバル市場の激動状況に照らせば、誠実な企業再建実施後も継続した企業の事業活動が可能となるような方策を模索することにつき、柔軟で積極的な役割を果たす意思が裁判所にあることを確認したものです。

なお、ケイマン諸島が企業再建における最先端の法域であることは、裁判官による会社債権者との調整案策定のために会社を代理するリストラクチャリング・オフィサーの選任にかかる第一号事例からも示されています。この事例については「ケイマン諸島における新たな企業再建の幕開け」をご参照ください。

背景およびスキーム・オブ・アレンジメントの提案

Four U.S. Supreme Court justices (Kagan, Kavanaugh, Roberts and Sotomayor) provide the following summary of their Purdue Pharmadissent in the Purdue Pharma case.

Wrong & Devastating

Today’s five-justice majority opinion is wrong on the law and devastating for more than 100,000 opioid victims and their families: