On 31 October 2023, Federal Law No. 51 of 2023 Promulgating the Financial and Bankruptcy Law (the Bankruptcy Law) was published in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Official Gazette, repealing the prior federal law on bankruptcy (Federal Law No. 9 of 2016, the Prior Law) and significantly developing the bankruptcy regime in the UAE.

There is no set of fixed rules when negotiating intercreditor arrangements as every deal is fact-specific, generally subject to significant negotiation and ultimately dependent on competing business rationales and negotiating leverage. The below outline is a useful tool for understanding the basic mechanics and strategic bankruptcy considerations in negotiating and documenting intercreditor arrangements.

Intercreditor Agreements Under the Bankruptcy Code

The National Security and Investment Act 2021 ("NSIA" or "the Act") came into force in the UK on 4 January 2022. NSIA expands the UK Government’s powers to scrutinise certain acquisitions and investments on national security grounds. NSIA applies where a target entity is within one of the 17 sensitive sectors set out in the Act and has activity in the UK. The UK Government’s power applies to transactions which complete in the period following 12 November 2020.

The pandemic has brought much uncertainty to the hotel sector — Intermittent national and regional lockdowns, work from home mandates and restrictions around domestic and international travel have left hoteliers in the unenviable position of keeping the lights on but without the occupancy or footfall of pre-2020. Government measures have no doubt helped, especially the ability to furlough large sections of the workforce, but as these measures are tapered down, some hotels – particularly city centre and airport hotels which rely on business travel — will struggle.

Status Of Crypto-Assets Under English Law

The definition of ‘property’ in section 436 of the Insolvency Act 1986 is considered by many to be wide enough to be inclusive of crypto-assets, and recent developments in this jurisdiction also support the position that crypto-assets constitute property under English law.

“[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.