Put your lender’s hat on. Wouldn’t it be great if you could prevent your borrower from filing bankruptcy in the first place? Unfortunately for lenders, a recent decision demonstrates how hard it is to prevent bankruptcy filings.
On December 1, 2014, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act of 2014(FIBA). The legislation passed on a voice vote and is supported by the major Wall Street banks.
All bankruptcy practitioners know that a debtor may choose which contracts to assume and which contracts to reject. But may a debtor reject contracts that are part of an overall, integrated transaction? In a recent bankruptcy decision, the court found the answer to be no, at least if the parties are careful in drafting their contracts.
The Court has heard another case dealing with a defective appointment of administrators under paragraph 22 of Schedule B1 Insolvency Act 1986 (“Schedule B1”)1. Following hot on the tail of a recent series of conflicting cases relating to defective appointments, the Court has held that:
In the much anticipated decision of Belmont Park Investments PTY Limited v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc [2011] UKSC 38 the Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal of Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc (“LBSF”) and in so doing provided clarification as to the scope and application of the anti-deprivation rule (the “Rule”).
In a recent case1, the High Court concluded that it was right to sanction schemes of arrangement which formed part of a wider debt restructuring that excluded out-of-the-money junior creditors. In doing so, it valued the distressed companies on a going concern basis.
Background