A challenging economic environment and Covid-19 are behind a looming wave of contentious insolvency in the Middle East. The legislative framework in the UAE now provides the tools to creditors to face the challenge.
Few things go together as naturally as fraud and insolvency. The pattern is now well rehearsed: scams pile up unnoticed while money flows in the good times, but when recession hits, increased scrutiny from lenders, counterparties and the tax man – not to mention insolvency practitioners – means fraud is far more likely to be discovered.
The Covid-19 pandemic has had a severe impact on the economy. This has given rise to an increasing number of claimants with claims against insolvent businesses.
In these circumstances, a third-party claimant would usually notify the company’s insolvency practitioner of its claim. The claimant is then required to pursue its recovery as part of the insolvency process alongside other creditors.
The Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (the 2010 Act)1
The UK’s new “restructuring plan” was enacted in June 2020.1 This highly-anticipated regime introduced (for the first time into English law) a tongue twisting “cross-class cram down” (CCCD) mechanism by which a restructuring plan can (at the court’s discretion) be imposed on an entire class of dissenting creditors or members.
Until recently, only two companies had successfully used the restructuring plan regime.2 In both instances, CCCD was not considered as the required voting thresholds (i.e. 75%) were met.
Overview
In In re Nuverra Environmental Solutions, Inc., Case No. 18-3084, the Third Circuit affirmed the opinion of the District Court for the District of Delaware denying the confirmation appeal of an unsecured noteholder as equitably moot. In doing so, the Third Circuit (i) refused to allow a full-class recovery, as it would unscramble the substantially consummated plan, and (ii) refused an individualized payout to the bondholder, as it would unfairly discriminate against other members of the class in contravention of the Bankruptcy Code.
Bottom Line
In its recent decision in Mitchell v. Zagaroli, Adv. Pro. No. 20-05000, 2020 WL 6495156 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. Nov. 3, 2020), the Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina held that the Chapter 7 trustee could step into the shoes of the IRS and utilize the IRS’ longer look-back period to avoid fraudulent transfers.
What Happened?
The Bottom Line
The Bottom Line
In In re CEC Entertainment, Inc., et al., 20-33163, 2020 WL 7356380 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Dec. 14, 2020), the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas held that the Bankruptcy Code does not permit the court to alter a debtor’s rent obligations beyond the 60-day post-petition period enumerated in Section 365(d)(3) of the code. However, the court declined to address the remedy for a violation of Section 365(d)(3).
What Happened?
Background
Insurers with portfolio assets that are distressed because of the COVID-19 pandemic will want to consider the extension of prior guidance from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) on restructuring such debt.
Real estate lenders and borrowers everywhere are trying to figure out what to do with properties that are either sitting vacant or underperforming pre-pandemic expectations. In New York, a number of mezzanine foreclosures have been pursued with varying degrees of success when challenged in court. Some lenders have been shopping their loans, mostly at discounts to par that are not large enough to create substantial deal flow in the marketplace.