In Short:
The Situation: After the nationalization of the Dutch SNS banking and insurance group, the Dutch Minister of Finance offered zero compensation to expropriated bondholders.
The Result: Ten years after the nationalization, the Dutch Supreme Court confirmed compensation awards totaling approximately €1 billion including accrued interest.
Looking Ahead: The SNS case provides some interesting lessons on where those seeking compensation in the context of bank bailouts and resolutions may head.
The Privy Council has considered the question of whether an agreement to settle disputes arising out of a shareholders' agreement by arbitration prevents a party to the agreement pursuing a petition to wind up the company on just and equitable grounds.
Background
In Mann v. LSQ Funding Group, L.C., 71 F.4th 640 (7th Cir. 2023), reh'g denied, 2023 WL 4684702 (7th Cir. July 21, 2023), the U.S.
Federal appellate courts have traditionally applied a "person aggrieved" standard to determine whether a party has standing to appeal a bankruptcy court order or judgment. However, this standard, which requires a direct, adverse, and financial impact on a potential appellant, is derived from a precursor to the Bankruptcy Code and does not appear in the existing statute.
The court-fashioned doctrine of "equitable mootness" has frequently been applied to bar appeals of bankruptcy court orders under circumstances where reversal or modification of an order could jeopardize, for example, the implementation of a negotiated chapter 11 plan or related agreements and upset the expectations of third parties who have relied on the order.
On June 6, 2023, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas confirmed the chapter 11 plan of bedding manufacturer Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC and its affiliates (collectively, "Serta"). In confirming Serta's plan, the court held that a 2020 "uptier," or "position enhancement," transaction (the "2020 Transaction") whereby Serta issued new debt secured by a priming lien on its assets and purchased its existing debt from participating lenders at a discount with a portion of the proceeds did not violate the terms of Serta's 2016 credit agreement.
Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code's "safe harbor" preventing avoidance in bankruptcy of certain securities, commodity, or forward-contract payments has long been a magnet for controversy. Several noteworthy court rulings have been issued in bankruptcy cases addressing the application of the provision, including application to financial institutions, its preemptive scope, and its application to non-publicly traded securities.
Bankruptcy trustees and chapter 11 debtors-in-possession ("DIPs") frequently seek to avoid fraudulent transfers and obligations under section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and state fraudulent transfer or other applicable nonbankruptcy laws because the statutory "look-back" period for avoidance under many nonbankruptcy laws exceeds the two-year period governing avoidance actions under section 548.
The recent ex-tempore judgment of Kawaley J in Atom Holdings1 in the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands serves as a timely reminder to practitioners and industry participants alike that obtaining an adjournment of a winding-up petition2 requires cogent evidence demonstrating good reason(s) for delaying what is otherwise the collective right of creditors to seek relief via court intervention.
It has been an interesting year-to-date in the Asia Pacific1 Region, particularly in the Mainland2 and Hong Kong3 as the Region has pivoted from COVID-zero to reopening its borders to the world. Given the number of larger scale Mainland property-related restructurings that were promulgated during the pandemic it is fair to say that at least amongst some in the profession, there were great (restructuring) expectations of 2023. This next wave of restructurings has not yet eventuated. Why?
Asia restructuring considerations & observations