Is it Groundhog Day for private equity backed companies struggling to cope with higher interest rates, or is it different this time? The attempts to curb inflation flowing from the re-opening of the global economy after the Covid pandemic and the war in Ukraine have seen interest rates rise globally. In this article we look back at the response to financial distress in private equity backed companies during the global financial crisis of 2007-2009 and ask if it is different this time?
In late August 2022, the Spanish Parliament passed the transposition into Spanish law of the Directive (EU) 2019/1023 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of June 20th 2019, on Preventive Restructuring Frameworks. The draft of this new Act was subject to multiple amendments and created great local expectations (also considerable controversy). The text finally enacted in Law 16/2022 introduces major reforms in the insolvency field which we hereby depict.
Introduction of the so-called “Restructuring Plans”
The Spanish Parliament's extraordinary plenary session of August 25, 2022, has passed a law amending the recast Insolvency Act, which amendment will enter into force 20 days after it is published in Spain's Official State Gazette, the "BOE".
This new law, after suffering numerous amendments as a bill, establishes major changes in the area of insolvency, and it incorporates into the Spanish legal system the guidelines established by Directive (EU) 2019/1023 of the European Parliament and of the Council, dated June 20, 2019, on preventive restructuring frameworks.
On 28 June 2022 the Insolvency Service published a report it had commissioned from RSM UK to assess the impact that CVAs were having on commercial landlords (the “Report”).
The UK Government yesterday announced that it will proceed with the phasing out of temporary measures introduced to protect businesses from creditor action during the COVID-19 pandemic, whilst also announcing new measures to protect smaller businesses from winding up petitions. The legislation required to implement these amendments was laid before Parliament yesterday and will come into force on 29 September 2021.
“[C]ourts may account for hypothetical preference actions within a hypothetical [C]hapter 7 liquidation” to hold a defendant bank (“Bank”) liable for a payment it received within 90 days of a debtor’s bankruptcy, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 7, 2017.In re Tenderloin Health, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4008, *4 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017).
The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.
A Chapter 11 debtor “cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure,” held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 4, 2016. In re New Investments Inc., 2016 WL 6543520, *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) (2-1).
While a recent federal bankruptcy court ruling provides some clarity as to how midstream gathering agreements may be treated in Chapter 11 cases involving oil and gas exploration and production companies (“E&Ps”), there are still many questions that remain. This Alert analyzes and answers 10 important questions raised by the In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation decision of March 8, 2016.[1]
An asset purchaser’s payments into segregated accounts for the benefit of general unsecured creditors and professionals employed by the debtor (i.e., the seller) and its creditors’ committee, made in connection with the purchase of all of the debtor’s assets, are not property of the debtor’s estate or available for distribution to creditors according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — even when some of the segregated accounts were listed as consideration in the governing asset purchase agreement. ICL Holding Company, Inc., et al. v.