Are you prepared to take advantage if one of your competitors falls into difficult times or enters an insolvency process? Do you know your way around buying from a distressed seller? What are the things you need to know? How can you prepare? What will make your bid most attractive?

Recent high profile collapses such as HMV have highlighted the opportunities that can be found within the distressed space – if you are prepared and know how to act swiftly.

On 18 December 2018 the English Court of Appeal held in the case of OJSC International Bank of Azerbaijan that the rule in Gibbs is still a fundamental tenet of English insolvency law and not to be sidestepped by the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations.

Facts

The facts in summary are these:

In yet another example of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) making its company and insolvency law even more versatile, the DIFC has introduced a mechanism which will operate in a similar manner to a scheme of arrangement under English law. The law came into effect on 12 November 2018.

Key terms

In September 2018 the Dubai International Financial Centre Authority (“DIFCA”) announced that it proposes to replace its current insolvency law with a new law to update the insolvency regime in the Dubai International Financial Centre (“DIFC”) and that it has launched a consultation in relation to the same.

Why are changes proposed?

Over the Bank holiday weekend, the UK government announced that it intends to introduce new legislation to implement certain measures (detailed below) as soon as parliamentary time permits.

The Supreme Court held that a statement about a single asset can be a “statement respecting the debtor’s financial condition” for purposes of determining the application of the exception to discharge set forth in Section 523(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code. Lamar, Archer & Cofrin LLP v. Appling, 2018 WL 2465174 (June 4, 2018).

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Merit Mgmt. Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., 138 S.Ct. 883 (2018), held that transfers made by and to entities that are not “financial institutions” or other covered entities fall outside of the scope of the § 546(e) safe harbor even if they are made through financial institutions or other covered entities. The Supreme Court’s decision resolves a circuit split over how the § 546(e) safe harbor applies to transactions involving conduit entities and could impact future disputes involving safe harbors under the Bankruptcy Code.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., 138 S.Ct. 883 (2018), held that transfers made by or to entities that are not “financial institutions” or other covered entities fall outside the scope of 11 U.S.C. § 546(e)’s “safe harbor” from a trustee’s avoidance powers under the Bankruptcy Code, even if those transfers are made through financial institutions or other covered entities.

The Ninth Circuit recently ruled that a Chapter 11 debtor could not avoid the payment of default interest under a promissory note as a condition to curing and reinstating such promissory note under a Chapter 11 plan. In Pacifica L 51 LLC v. New Investments Inc. (In re New Investments, Inc.), 840 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2016), the Ninth Circuit held that its prior rule of allowing a curing debtor to avoid a contractual post-default interest rate in a loan agreement—as decided in Great Western Bank & Trust v.

The High Court yesterday held that a Chairperson of a shareholder scheme meeting may reject votes cast against a scheme of arrangement in circumstances where the shares were acquired through an artificial share-splitting exercise designed to frustrate the scheme. It is the first English case to consider this issue and while it arose in the context of a shareholder scheme, the impact is also significant for debt restructurings implemented by way of a creditor scheme of arrangement.

Background