Turns out, it depends on who you ask. Judge Bernstein said no. Recently, Judge Glenn said yes, but only for causes of action that resemble actual fraudulent transfers. It is unusual for the bankruptcy judges in Manhattan to disagree with each other, so let’s take a look at the issue.
Background
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
The UK's latest quarterly company insolvency statistics, published on 30 April, show that insolvency rates remain significantly below pre-pandemic levels, demonstrating the continued success of Government measures in preventing a COVID-19 related wave of insolvencies.
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.
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.
For most businesses, the Chancellor’s budget statement yesterday brings some welcome news with the extension of certain critical Covid-19 support measures. However, this is coupled with the removal of certain government-backed loan schemes and a future increase in the corporation tax rate from 19 per cent to 25 per cent from 2023 onwards.
Over the last 12 months, global markets have been amazingly resilient, indeed even buoyant, aided in large part by governments around Europe and the world providing seemingly unlimited funding and extensive financial stabilisation measures, such as quantitative easing.
This, coupled with protective legislation for companies to prevent insolvency filings and to ensure continued trading – for example, moratoriums, relaxations on insolvency filing obligations and restrictions on creditor actions – has given businesses significant breathing space and prevented widespread failures.