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).

On 22 November 2016, the European Commission published a draft directive on insolvency, restructuring and second chance. In this briefing we consider the proposals and what it means for European insolvency and for the UK.

On 22 November 2016, the European Commission published a draft directive on insolvency, restructuring and second chance (the Proposals).

What are the Proposals? The Proposals have three main parts:

This briefing covers Brexit implications of restructuring and insolvency, in particular it discusses the implications on the European Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings and recognition of insolvency judgments and how schemes of arrangement will be impacted by Brexit.

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.

Summary

English insolvency law is about to change, making it harder for IT suppliers to stop supplying when a customer goes into an insolvency procedure. The aim is to help administrators and others to secure the supply of IT products and services that might be needed to rescue failing businesses. 

Bankruptcy courts may hear state law disputes “when the parties knowingly and voluntarily consent,” held the U.S. Supreme Court on May 26, 2015. Wellness Int’l Network Ltd. v. Sharif, 2015 WL 2456619, at *3 (May 26, 2015). That consent, moreover, need not be express, reasoned the Court. Id. at *9 (“Nothing in the Constitution requires that consent to adjudication by a bankruptcy court be express.”). Reversing the U.S.

Summary

We reported in December 2014 that the amendments to the EC Regulation on Insolvency Proceeding (the Recast Regulation) were virtually finalised and agreed between the various legislative organs of the European Union.

Finally after several years, the debate is now over and the European Parliament has now approved the final text – broadly as it was in December 2014. The outcome is good news for cross border corporate restructurings and insolvencies around Europe, but it will not come into force for over two years.

Next steps

Following the Dec. 8 publication by the American Bankruptcy Institute (“ABI”) Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 of a report (the “Report”) recommending changes to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (“Code”),[1] we continue to analyze the proposals contained in the ABI’s 400-page Report. One proposal we wanted to immediately highlight would, if adopted, significantly increase the risk profile for secured lenders.

Setoff provisions are commonly found in a variety of trading related agreements between hedge funds and their dealer counterparties. Last November, Judge Christopher Sontchi of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held that “triangular setoff” is not enforceable in the context of a bankruptcy case.[1] “Triangular setoff” is a contractual right of setoff that permits one party (“Party One”) to net and set off contractual claims of Party One and its affiliated entities  against another party (“Party Two”).