The appointment of an independent director is a powerful tool for private credit lenders. The appointment is designed to introduce a voice of neutrality and fairness into the board’s decision-making process with the hope and expectation that independence from the controlling shareholder enables the board to drive toward viable value-maximizing strategies. Often times, the independent director is vested with exclusive authority (or veto rights) over a range of significant corporate decisions, including a sale, restructuring and the decision to file a bankruptcy case.
- In one of the most high-profile and hotly-watched cases in the London restructuring market, on 18 February 2025, the English High Court approved the restructuring plan proposed by Thames Water.
- The Court gave permission to appeal the Court’s order to a group of challenging junior creditors, a subordinated creditor and Liberal Democrat MP Charlie Maynard, with the Court of Appeal due to sit from 11 to 13 March 2025.
The Barton doctrine provides that a court-appointed receiver cannot be sued absent “leave of court by which he was appointed.” Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126, 127 (1881).
Situations Partner Kai Zeng in London Kai Zeng, who advises on cross-border restructurings and special situations matters, has joined the firm in London as a partner in the Restructuring Department and Finance and Hybrid Capital & Special Situations groups.
Kai advises sponsors, debtors, creditors and strategic investors on restructurings of stressed and distressed businesses, as well as hedge and credit funds, investments banks and private equity firms on their review and diligence of European investment opportunities in par, stressed and distressed transactions.
Section 548 of the bankruptcy code authorizes a trustee, debtor, or other appropriate party to avoid actual and constructive fraudulent transfers that occurred prepetition. In order to prove that a transfer was an actual fraudulent transfer, the trustee (or another appropriate plaintiff) must prove that the debtor made the transfer “with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud any entity to which to debtor was or became…indebted.” 11 U.S.C. §548(a)(1)(A).
One common denominator links nearly all stressed businesses: tight liquidity. After the liquidity hole is identified and sized, the discussion inevitably turns to the question of who will fund the necessary capital to extend the liquidity runway. For a PE-backed business where there is a credible path to recovery, a sponsor, due to its existing equity stake, is often willing to inject additional capital into an underperforming portfolio company.
On September 10, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued its opinion in Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. The Hertz Corp. (In re The Hertz Corp.), Case No. 23-1169, 2024 WL 4132132 (3d Cir. Sept.
In a much-anticipated decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently held that unsecured noteholders’ claims against a debtor for certain “Applicable Premiums” were the “economic equivalent” to unmatured interest and, therefore, not recoverable under section 502(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.
An appeals court has issued an insightful decision on the availability of damages when an involuntary bankruptcy petition is filed in bad faith. See Stursberg v. Morrison Sund PLLC, No. 23-1186, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 20286 (8th Cir. Aug. 13, 2024).
The decision addresses both the interplay between Bankruptcy Code sections 303 and 305 and federal preemption of state law.
Under federal law, a debtor may be criminally prosecuted for various kinds of misconduct in connection with a bankruptcy case, including concealing assets, falsifying information, embezzlement, or bribery. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 152, 157. The U.S. Trustee, which serves as a watchdog over the bankruptcy process, will refer such cases to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for investigation and prosecution.