Two United States Bankruptcy Judges for the Southern District of New York recently issued a joint opinion addressing common issues raised by motions to dismiss in two separate adversary proceedings – one pending before Judge Bernstein and the other before Judge Glenn (the “Adversary Proceedings”). The Adversary Proceedings were filed by the debtors in two chapter 11 cases, each involving an Anguillan offshore bank – National Bank of Anguilla (Private Banking Trust) Ltd. and Caribbean Commercial Investment Bank Ltd. (the “Debtor Banks”).

Manley Toys Limited once claimed to be the seventh largest toy company in the world. Due to ongoing litigation and declining sales, it entered into a voluntary liquidation in Hong Kong. On March 22, 2016, the debtor’s appointed liquidators and foreign representatives filed a motion for recognition under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code. The motion was opposed by ASI Inc., f/k/a Aviva Sports, Inc. (“Aviva”) and Toys “R” Us, Inc. (“TRU”).

U.S. Bankruptcy Rule 9019 provides that on a motion brought by a trustee (and thus a chapter 11 debtor-in-possession as well) the court may approve a settlement. The prevailing view is that due to the court’s approval requirement, pre-court approval settlement agreements are enforceable by the debtor but not against the debtor. The District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently disagreed. It held that the statutory approval requirement is not an opportunity for the debtor to repudiate the settlement.

Directors and officers (D&Os) of troubled companies should be highly sensitive to D&O insurance policies with Prior Act Exclusion. While policies with such exclusion may be cheaper, a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Eleventh Circuit raises the spectre that a court may hold a loss to have more than a coincidental causal connection with the officer’s conduct pre-policy period and make the (cheaper) coverage worthless.

Purpose

A continuación vamos a explorar diversos problemas que se plantean a propósito del apartado 9 de la disposición adicional 4.ª de la Ley Concursal, cuando existen garantes personales (o garantes reales por deuda ajena) en un proceso de refinanciación homologable por dicha disposición.

1. El crédito contingente contra el garante que refinancia por la disposición adicional 4.ª

Below we will explore several problems that arise in connection with para. 9 of the 4th Additional Provision ("AP") of the Insolvency Act ("LCon") when there are personal guarantors – or collateral-providers for third party debt – within refinancing arrangement ‘homologation’ (court-sanctioning) proceedings under said 4th AP.

1. Contingent claim against the guarantor who refinances under the 4th AP.

A U.S. House of Representatives Bill would amend the Bankruptcy Code to establish new provisions to address the special issues raised by troubled nonbank financial institutions.

Please click here to view table

PRIMERA. El dinero de la refinanciación a efectos de los artículos 71 bis, 82.2.11.º y la disposición adicional 4.ª de la Ley Concursal (LCon) es suficiente que se haya suscrito «en el contexto de la refinanciación» y se destine a que el deudor obtenga liquidez, pudiendo ser una financiación simultánea, anterior o posterior al acuerdo, «siempre y cuando esté íntimamente conectado conéste y con la viabilidad de la empresa a corto o medio plazo»(conclusión aprobada por mayoría).

In a 2-1 opinion, the Second Circuit overruled the district court in Marblegate Asset Management LLC v. Education Management Corp., finding no violation of the Trust Indenture Act (“TIA”) in connection with an out-of-court debt restructuring.

Background