On 27 July 2022, the European Union (Preventive Restructuring) Regulations 2022 (S.I. 380/2022) (the Regulations) amended the Irish Companies Act 2014 (the Act) by transposing certain requirements of Directive (EU) 2019/1023 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 (the Directive) not already provided for in Irish law.

This has resulted in a number of modifications to the examinership regime and, for the first time, a codification of directors' duties when companies are in the `zone of insolvency'.

The changes to the Examinership regime include:

Voyager Aviation Holdings, LLC (Voyager) is a privately held aircraft owner and lessor with approximately $2 billion in assets. Voyager is headquartered in Dublin and has offices in Stamford, Connecticut.

Earlier this year, A&L Goodbody LLP advised Voyager on the successful restructuring of its senior note obligations.1 The restructuring was implemented by way of a US exchange offer that simultaneously solicited support for both a "plan B" Irish scheme of arrangement and a "plan C" prepack US Chapter 11.

Earlier today, 26 May 2021, the final condition to the restructuring plan for the Norwegian Air Shuttle group was met, allowing the Examiner’s scheme to become effective: confirmation that the business has successfully raised 6bn NOK.

On 21 July 2020 the Irish High Court approved a scheme of arrangement for the world's largest regional aircraft lessor Nordic Aviation Capital DAC (Nordic).

The scheme, which included a 12-month standstill and deferral of c. US$5 billion of secured and unsecured debt, was a market-first for the aircraft leasing industry and has been watched closely by others in the sector.

The Irish scheme had a number of innovative features:

Overview

The recent approval by the Irish High Court of a scheme of arrangement that restructured US$1.65bn of liabilities of Ballantyne Re plc (Ballantyne) confirms Dublin as one of the most effective restructuring venues in the EU. The detailed decision of Justice Barniville (available here) offers significant precedential value and is a clear endorsement that Irish schemes can be used to implement complex cross border restructurings. The Irish statute governing schemes is very similar to that of England and Wales.

Essence of the Ballantyne scheme:

“[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.