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.
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.
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
Addressing a novel issue in In re: International Oil Trading Company, LLC, 548 B.R. 825 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2016), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida recently denied in part an involuntary debtor’s motion to compel production of communications between the judgment creditor who had filed the involuntary bankruptcy petition and the petitioner’s litigation funder. The Court found that the attorney-client privilege and work product protection were applicable to certain disclosures made to the litigation funder, a non-lawyer third-party.
- Introduction
On 7 September 2014, Royal Decree Act 11/2014 on urgent measures in insolvency matters (“RD 11/2014”) came into force, introducing important changes in the Spanish Insolvency Act (“SIA”), especially regarding incourt proceedings, whether within a composition or a liquidation stage. This piece of legislation followed Royal Decree 4/2014 (“RD 4/2014), which introduced equivalent measures for preinsolvency restructurings.
Introduction
This paper aims to briefly describe the scenarios where acts or actions might be rescinded (particularly in the context of refinancing or debt restructuring of Spanish companies) pursuant to the Spanish Insolvency Act (“SIA”) and the consequences of rescission from a legal standpoint. Procedural questions related to the subject matter are not analyzed in this document.
What acts can be rescinded?
1. Introduction
Given the situation of Spanish market generally —and the latest reforms on restructuring of the financial sector more particularly— it seems that cash flow shortage may be ongoing in the near to mid term future for some Spanish corporations. Upon this situation stressed or distressed companies may consider rescue financing alternatives in substitution —or in addition to— other traditional funding. Generally within a broadest restructuring deal, non-bank lenders may have an interesting role to play in providing for liquidity facilities.