Unitranche financing began as a middle-market product, tracing its origins to the days of recovery from the global credit crisis. The credit markets re-opened with an explosion of available capital from traditional lenders, business development companies and other direct lenders. With an increasing supply of capital, leverage shifted to borrowers and private equity, allowing them to better dictate the terms and conditions of their loan facilities. With the greater prevalence of so-called “covenant-lite” loans, also came the exponential growth of the unitranche market.
On 5 April 2022, the UK government published the first review of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (the Rules) (the Report). It is evident from the Report that many respondents took the opportunity to raise issues faced in practice, not just with the Rules, but with the operation of the insolvency legislation in general.
In Minor Hotel Group MEA DMCC v Dymant & Anor [2022] EWHC 340 (Ch), is the first reported High Court decision considering a contested moratorium since the new Part A1 moratorium ("moratorium") was introduced in 2020, in which the monitors successfully opposed an application by the parent company's secured creditor to remove the monitors and end the moratorium.
The merchant cash advance (“MCA”) industry recently provided two different bankruptcy courts with an opportunity to consider the characterization of MCA funding transactions as either “true sales” of receivables or “disguised loans”.
Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, adopted in all fifty states plus the District of Columbia with relatively few variations, sets out, among other things, the rules to be followed when obtaining a security interest in personal property collateral to secure a loan. The basic premise of Article 9 is that if the lender follows the rules, it should be protected against third parties, including other creditors or a bankruptcy trustee, who would seek to challenge the lender’s security interest or the priority of the security interest.
In its much-discussed decision, City of Chicago v. Fulton, 141 S. Ct. 585 (2020), the Supreme Court ruled that the City of Chicago (“City”) was not in violation of Section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code for failing to release an impounded car to a debtor in bankruptcy.
Periodically courts remind corporate directors that their decisions to act or to refrain from acting during the course of managing the affairs of a corporation are not without limitations. It is well established that corporate directors owe fiduciary duties, and more specifically, a duty of care and a duty of loyalty to corporate shareholders. Those duties should always be at the front of mind of every director when any action or inaction is contemplated, but in particular, when addressing challenging issues facing the corporation.
CVAs are a useful tool in the restructuring tool kit, and may prove extremely helpful to retailers or hospitality companies as a means of supporting those businesses as they emerge from the pandemic. The flexibility of a CVA and the ability to shape the terms of a proposal to meet the specific needs of a business have seen an increasing number of consumer led businesses use CVAs, and they have become popular as a means to restructure businesses that have a significant lease portfolio.
Following our previous alert that considered rent reductions and modifications to lease terms post New Look and Regis, this alert considers what those CVA challenge cases tell landlords about calculating a landlord's claim for voting purposes and the disclosure requirements.
From 30 April 2021, an administrator will be unable to complete a sale of a substantial part of a company's property to a connected person within the first eight weeks of the administration without either:
- The approval of creditors
- An independent written opinion (positive or negative)
This alert considers the impact of the new regulations in practice, which apply to both pre-packs and post-packs that take place within eight weeks of an administrator's appointment.
When is an evaluator's report required?