The Act is a groundbreaking development in Singapore's corporate rescue laws and includes major changes to the rules governing schemes of arrangement, judicial management, and cross-border insolvency. The Act also incorporates several features of chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, including super-priority rescue financing, cram-down powers, and prepackaged restructuring plans. The legislation may portend Singapore's emergence as a center for international debt restructuring.

In a recent ruling, Trusa v. Nepo(Del. Ch. April 13, 2017), consistent with prior case law, Vice Chancellor Montgomery-Reeves of the Delaware Chancery Court held that a creditor cannot bring a derivative action against a Delaware limited liability company, even where the company is clearly insolvent. The ruling is interesting, because in the well-known case of North American Catholic Educational Programming Foundation, Inc. v. Gheewalla, 930 A.2d 92 (Del.

In a short decision, In re that Certain Indenture Date as of April 1, 2010 (MN Ct. App. April 3, 2017), the Court of Appeals of Minnesota recently addressed a challenge to the award of trustee fees and legal expenses brought by a municipal bondholder.

In Short:

The Action: Courts in Singapore and the states of New York and Delaware have formally implemented Guidelines for Communication and Cooperation between Courts in Cross-border Insolvency Matters.

The Motivation: The Guidelines were developed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of cross-border insolvency proceedings and to encourage coordination and cooperation among relevant courts.

Looking Ahead: Expect the Guidelines to be implemented in other significant jurisdictions.

On March 10, 2017, Singapore's Parliament approved the Companies (Amendment) Bill 2017 ("Act") to enhance the country's corporate debt restructuring framework. The Act was assented to by President Tony Tan Keng Yam on March 29, 2017, and became effective after it was published in the Singapore Government Gazette on March 30, 2017.

Part 1 of this series described the recent decision of the ISDA Americas Determinations Committee to declare that a “failure to pay” had occurred with respect to iHeartCommunications Inc., notwithstanding that the only non-payment had been to a wholly owned subsidiary. The non-payment was orchestrated to avoid a springing lien that would have been triggered had all the notes of a particular issue of iHeartCommunications debt been paid in full. It did not reflect on the creditworthiness of iHeartCommunications.

For the benefit of our clients and friends investing in European distressed opportunities, our European Network is sharing some current developments.

Recent Developments

A recent case in the Southern District of New York, U.S. Bank, NA v. T.D. Bank, NA, applied the so-called Rule of Explicitness to the allocation of recoveries among creditors outside of a bankruptcy proceeding. In the bankruptcy context, this rule requires a clear and unambiguous intention to turn over post-petition interest to senior creditors at the expense of junior creditors. The court in this case found the requisite documentary clarity to pay post-petition interest ahead of the distribution of principal.

In a decision last month, DCF Capital, LLC v. US Shale Solutions, LLC (Sup. Ct. NY Co. Jan. 24, 2017), a New York State Supreme Court justice held that a noteholder that had properly accelerated indenture debt may sue to collect that debt notwithstanding the operation of a standard no-action clause. This holding, while appealing from a noteholder perspective, may not be compelled by Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act on which it rests and is contrary to some prior case law.

Background

In a recent decision in the Southern District of New York, the court addressed a challenge to a secured-for-unsecured debt exchange offer that raised and answered a host of questions on the potential vulnerability of offers of this type. In Waxman v. Cliffs Natural Resources (SDNY December 6, 2016), the court dealt with standing to pursue a challenge; TIA §316(b) after Marblegate and MeehanCombs/Caesars; the no-action clause and allegations of conflict of interest of the trustee; the remedies clause; and discrimination against non-QIBs.