Key point

The equitable rules designed to protect guarantors from amendments to the original financing agreements made without his consent do not apply to indemnities under English law.

The facts

A company entered into factoring arrangements. The directors entered into indemnities in favour of the factor.

Key point

The English Courts have refused to discharge a bankruptcy order made on the basis of the individual's presence in the jurisdiction for one day only, where Russian asset freezing orders had been broken, the Court misled and in the knowledge recognition of a UK bankruptcy order in Russia was unlikely.

The facts

Key point

The UK Government has published its response to their July 2013 consultation on restoring transparency and trust in the UK corporate governance regime. There are a number of proposals to widen the scope of the director disqualification regime and make recovery of losses by creditors from responsible directors easier.

The response

Key Point

The High Court decided how the expected surplus assets of Lehman Brothers International Europe (LBIE) should be distributed between a number of creditors whose claims include subordinated loans, statutory interest and foreign currency conversion losses.

The Facts

On December 5, 2013, Judge Steven Rhodes of the US Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan held that the city of Detroit had satisfied the five expressly delineated eligibility requirements for filing under Chapter 9 of the US Bankruptcy Code¹ and so could proceed with its bankruptcy case.

On May 15, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Circuit Court”) issued an opinion in In re TOUSA, Inc.,¹ in which it affirmed the original decision of the bankruptcy court and reversed the appellate decision of the district court. After a 13-day trial, the bankruptcy court had found that liens granted by certain TOUSA subsidiaries (the “Conveying Subsidiaries”) to secure new loans (the “New Term Loans”) incurred to pay off preexisting indebtedness to certain lenders (the “Transeastern Lenders”) were avoidable fraudulent transfers.

Introduction

The recent bankruptcy filings by infrastructure companies Connector 2000 Association Inc., South Bay Expressway, L.P., California Transportation Ventures, Inc., and the Las Vegas Monorail Company have tested the structures utilized to implement public-private partnerships (P3s) in the United States in several respects. It is still too early to draw definitive conclusions about the impact of these proceedings on P3 structures going forward, but initial rulings in two of the cases are already focusing the minds of project participants on threshold structuring considerations.

In a decision that reaffirms its previous rulings on the jurisdictional limits of bankruptcy courts, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently held in W.R. Grace & Co. v. Chakarian (In re W.R. Grace & Co.)1 that bankruptcy courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over third-party actions against non-debtors if such actions could affect a debtor’s bankruptcy estate only following the filing of another lawsuit.

To promote equal treatment of creditors, the US Congress has armed debtors with the power to bring suit to recover a variety of pre-bankruptcy transfers. Prominent among these is a debtor’s ability under Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code to recover constructively fraudulent transfers — i.e., transfers made without fair consideration when a debtor is insolvent.