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.

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.

As discussed in our previous update, the Business Continuity Act of 31 January 2009 (the “Act”) provides for various options to facilitate business recovery. One such option is the court-supervised sale of (all or part of) the debtor’s business.

The introduction of the court-supervised sale is an important development. Such sales are likely to become a popular option under the Act for two reasons.

The Business Continuity Act of 31 January 2009 (the "Act") creates a variety of flexible tools to promote business recovery. This update focuses on the new judicial (i.e., court-supervised) reorganisation proceedings (as opposed to out-of-court workouts and court-supervised sales of the business).

Simplified access to proceedings

The Act of January 31, 2009 on the continuity of companies (Loi relative à la continuité des enterprises/Wet betreffende de continuïteit van de ondernemingen, the "Act") entered into force on April 1, 2009.

The Business Continuity Act of 31 January 2009 (the “Act”) creates a variety of flexible tools to promote business recovery and turnaround. In addition to an updated judicial reorganization procedure (i.e., a reorganization overseen by the court), the Act also introduces several interesting options for out-of-court workouts and preventive measures to promote business recovery.

Out-of-court agreements

Entry into force on 1 April 2009 of the new Act on the continuity of companies

The Act of 31 January 2009 on the continuity of companies (Loi relative à la continuité des enterprises/Wet betreffende de continuïteit van de ondernemingen, the "Act") entered into force on 1 April 2009.