Over the last two years, BEIS has issued a number of consultations either focussed on, or touching upon, corporate governance issues in insolvency or the broader insolvency framework.

2018 has been described as “the year of the CVA”, especially in the retail and casual dining sectors. Although company voluntary arrangements can be a useful tool to compromise portfolios of leasehold obligations, there are certain situations where a CVA may be unsuitable.

1. When a full operational and/or financial restructuring is required

In a highly-anticipated decision on a long-running bondholder dispute, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its judgment last week in Marblegate Asset Management LLC v Education Management Corp. It concluded that “Section 316(b) [of the US Trust Indenture Act 1939] prohibits only non-consensual amendments to an indenture’s core payment terms”, i.e. the amount of principal and interest owed and the maturity date.

Major legislative changes

Reform of English corporate insolvency framework

The Insolvency Service is reviewing responses to its consultation on significant reforms designed to improve the restructuring tools available to companies. These include:

On 22 November 2016, the European Commission announced a draft directive on insolvency, restructuring and second chance in the EU in the form of the EU Business Restructuring Directive (the “Proposed Directive“) which can be read here.

As settlement in relation to Ukraine’s successful sovereign exchange offers is expected today, we explain why this sovereign deal is groundbreaking.

Background: The Exchange Offers

On 22 September 2015, Ukraine launched Exchange Offers in relation to the following (Old Notes):

Speed Read

On Monday 17 November 2014, Weil held its inaugural European Distressed Investor Conference at The Dorchester in London. A summary of the key discussion points follows.

Panel A:

In June 2011, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case known as Stern v. Marshall. The U.S. Supreme Court held that filing a proof of claim in a bankruptcy case does not constitute consent to the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over all counterclaims or actions that the bankruptcy estate may later bring against the creditor.

In fact, filing the proof of claim constitutes consent only to those claims or actions that either (1) stem from the bankruptcy case itself; or (2) are necessary to the resolution of the creditor’s proof of claim.  

When a traditional nonbanking company files a case under the Bankruptcy Code, a judge is appointed to be the neutral arbiter of disputes that arise between the debtor and its creditors.