On November 6, 2023, WeWork Inc. and several hundred of its affiliates filed voluntary chapter 11 cases in the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey. According to a press release issued simultaneously with the filings, WeWork also intends to file recognition proceedings in Canada under Part IV of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act. The press release also states that WeWork’s locations outside of the United States and Canada are not part of the reorganization process.
On June 6, 2023, the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (the “Court”) confirmed Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC’s (“Serta”) Chapter 11 plan and held that Serta’s 2020 uptiering transaction (the “Uptiering Transaction”) did not breach Serta’s 2016 first lien credit agreement (the “Credit Agreement”).
Investing in or acquiring distressed assets can be a lucrative investment strategy for those with a healthy risk appetite and a roadmap for sourcing and evaluating quality assets.
Following a steep run-up in crypto asset prices and valuations of crypto-adjacent businesses in the last two years, there has been a sharp increase in companies and assets in the space looking at deeply distressed valuations, liquidity crunches or formal insolvency or bankruptcy proceedings.
With a slowdown in capital markets activity and sharply decreased economic activity, the pressures on borrowers (and therefore their lenders) are only going to increase in the near term.
Prepayment premiums (also referred to as make-whole premiums) are a common feature in loan documents, allowing lenders to recover a lump-sum amount if a borrower pays off loan obligations prior to maturity, effectively compensating lenders for yield that they would have otherwise received absent prepayment. As a result of the widespread use of such provisions, three circuit courts of appeal – the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Second, Third and Fifth Circuit – have recently had to address the enforceability of prepayment provisions in bankruptcy.
With two decisions (No. 1895/2018 and No. 1896/2018), both filed on 25 January 2018, the Court of Cassation reached opposite conclusions in the two different situations
The case
The Constitutional Court (6 December 2017) confirmed that Art. 147, para. 5, of the Italian Bankruptcy Law does not violate the Constitution as long as it is interpreted in a broad sense
The case
With the decision No. 1195 of 18 January 2018, the Court of Cassation ruled on the powers of the extraordinary commissioner to require performance of pending contracts and on the treatment of the relevant claims of the suppliers
The case
The Court of Cassation with a decision of 25 September 2017, No. 22274 confirms that Art. 74 of the Italian Bankruptcy Law provides a special rule, which does not apply to cases to which it is not explicitly extended
The case
With the decision No. 1649 of 19 September 2017 the Court of Appeals of Catania followed the interpretation according to which a spin-off is not subject to the avoiding powers of a bankruptcy receiver
The case