In a first, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in the Arcapita Bank case had to decide whether Shari’a compliant investment agreements, providing for Murabaha and Wakala transactions, qualify for the safe harbor protections provided in the bankruptcy code for securities contracts, forwards and swaps. The court held that they do not. Since the opinion runs about 100 pages long, we attempt to distill some very basic facts concerning Shari’a compliant transactions and point to important holdings made by the court.

Shari’a Compliant Transactions

In the US distressed market, liability management has emerged as an effective and widely accepted tool to increase liquidity, restructure debts and extend a borrower’s runway to help it avoid insolvency. However, although not unheard of, it is yet to achieve the same prevalence in Europe, where documents are still catching up to the level of flexibility seen in the US, and different capital structures and legal regimes raise different issues.

On 18 March 2021, the UK Government published its long-awaited white paper on restoring trust in audit and corporate governance.

This follows a series of high-profile audit errors and major corporate collapses, including those of BHS in 2016 and Carillion in 2018, which led the Government to commission three independent reviews into different aspects of the UK’s audit, reporting and corporate governance systems.

The white paper targets large listed and AIM-listed companies, and large private companies where there is a public interest, and primarily focuses on:

In a recent decision, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that a purported debt held by an entity with a near-majority membership interest in the Debtor was actually equity disguised as a loan.

Background

In a recent decision, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit closed the door on triangular setoffs, ruling that the mutuality requirement under Section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code must be strictly construed and requires that the debt and claim sought to be setoff must be between the same two parties. In re: Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., No. 20-1136 (3d. Cir. 2021).

Background

On 26 June 2020 the UK Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (the Act) came into force. The Act marked the most significant insolvency reforms in a generation – introducing new permanent restructuring tools (such as the restructuring plan and the moratorium). It also introduced two temporary measures (see our blog post here) specifically dealing with the impact of COVID-19 on companies:

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (the Act) introduced significant changes to insolvency law, including permitting companies to propose a “restructuring plan”. The restructuring plan offers a flexible option for companies that sponsor defined benefit pension schemes to compromise their obligations to creditors and, potentially, to the pension scheme itself.

The Pension Schemes Act 2021 (‘the Act’) has received Royal Assent, with the UK government indicating that key provisions will come into force by autumn 2021.

The Act includes a number of provisions that will significantly impact restructuring activity involving financially distressed groups with a UK defined-benefit (DB) pension scheme.

What will change under the Act?

Below are some of the most significant changes being introduced by the Act.

After Virgin Atlantic and Pizza Express achieved ‘too much consent’ and did not need cross-class cram down in the end, DeepOcean is the first judgment applying cross-class cram down as part of a restructuring plan.

In a recent decision, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the election of a tenant, under Section 365(h) of the Bankruptcy Code, to remain in possession of real property governed by a rejected lease causes a third-party guaranty on another rejected agreement to remain in effect, to the extent such agreement and the lease are part of an integrated transaction.