Bankruptcy & Restructuring

Among the many financial innovations that came out of the COVID era, non-pro rata uptier transactions as a liability management exercise (“LMEs”) are among the more controversial. While lawsuits challenging non-pro rata uptier transactions are making their way through the courts, two important decisions were recently issued by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the New York Appellate Division. 

Most high-growth companies find themselves in a race against the clock, trying to use whatever capital they may have to achieve milestones prior to hitting their cash-out date. When markets are tight, as they have been over the past several months, founders and boards confront the reality of a liquidity crisis on a nearly daily basis in their scenario planning. It can come in the form of a potential buyer or investor deciding to walk away from a deal, a current investor experiencing its own liquidity crunch, or unfavorable data coming at an unfavorable time. Whatever the cause, when a company approaches insolvency, it is often an existential event, forcing the board of directors to think carefully about how to help the company make decisions in view of the board’s changing fiduciary duties, as well as how those duties may be impacted by a company’s declining cash position. 

A main goal in bankruptcy is to get in and out as quickly as possible to minimize costs.  It is often the case that even though a substantial portion of a debtor’s assets have been liquidated in bankruptcy, some valuable assets will remain that can provide additional sources of recovery to creditors. These assets may include smaller pieces of real estate, accounts receivable, joint venture ownership interests, and claims and causes of action, among others.

The latest amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure took effect on December 1, 2022. This collection of modifications may be broadly divided into two categories: amendments and a new rule promulgated to account for the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 and  amendments clarifying or consolidating non-SBRA specific Bankruptcy Rules.

 

Could bankruptcy protection be on the horizon for individuals and companies actively involved in the cannabis industry?  Potentially yes, following President Biden’s October 6, 2022 request for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to begin the administrative process to review marijuana’s classification as a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substance Act (“CSA”).

Voyager Digital Assets Inc., along with two of its affiliates, filed bankruptcy petitions in the Southern District of New York on July 5, 2022. While “crypto” is a newcomer to the United States bankruptcy system, the familiar contours of insolvency law will be at play in the Voyager bankruptcy with many new questions yet to be answered.

A reminder for how property owners and real estate developers can protect themselves – and their projects – from downstream distress. There are six key issues that owners should consider when contracting for their next project.

A recent decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York highlights directors’ fiduciary duty to evaluate all aspects of multi-stage transactions, including those portions to be effectuated post-closing by successor directors.

In a recent decision, In re Astria Health, Case No. 19-01189-WLH11, 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 155 (Bankr. E.D. Wash. January 22, 2021), the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Washington arguably further expanded the context in which non-debtor releases may be allowed.

For bankruptcy litigators – or any business which has been frustrated to receive a demand letter after one of its customers filed bankruptcy – one particular amendment stands out in the CARES ACT bill. The Act amended Section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code to provide suppliers and landlords with an additional potential challenge to actions brought to “claw back” payments made by a debtor in the 90 days preceding bankruptcy.

The CARES Act assists debtors by amending Section 365(d)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code to allow, at the bankruptcy court’s discretion, small business debtors experiencing pandemic-related financial hardship an extra 60 days, in addition to the initial 60-day grace period, to make payments under unexpired leases of non-residential real property following the bankruptcy filing date.

The CARES Act benefits both debtors and creditors by temporarily modifying several sections of the Bankruptcy Code, which may be of particular interest to creditors.

The Automatic Stay: Supreme Court Finds that Retaining Debtors’ Property, Despite Turnover Demands, is Not a Stay Violation

On December 1, 2020, certain amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure take effect. The amendments largely modify rules governing bankruptcy appeals, but also impact Rules 2002 and 2004.

Over the summer, we wrote about why health care companies may want to consider buying assets out of bankruptcy, taking advantage of the Bankruptcy Code Section 363 sale process (a "363 Sale”). We are back with our second post, to provide more detail to the process and discuss some pros and cons of 363 Sales.

As a refresher, a 363 Sale couples a flexible and fast process with ample liability protection for willing buyers. The primary benefit of a 363 Sale is that a buyer can acquire the debtor’s assets free and clear of virtually all liens, claims, and interests burdening the assets and the debtor. And when Section 363 is coupled with the “assumption and assignment” provisions of Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor is able to assign most contracts or leases that a buyer may wish to purchase, including contracts with ironclad anti-assignment language, provided that certain conditions are satisfied. When a target is experiencing severe financial distress, the benefit of acquiring assets “free and clear” is extraordinarily valuable.