On May 22, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in Franchise Services of North America v. United States Trustees (In re Franchise Services of North America), 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 13332 (5th Cir. May 22, 2018). That decision affirms the lower court’s holding that a “golden share” is valid and necessary to filing when held by a true investor, even if such investor is controlled by a creditor.

The Circuit Courts of Appeal have split on whether a prepetition transfer made by a debtor is avoidable if the transfer was made through a financial intermediary that was a mere conduit. Today, the Supreme Court unanimously resolved the split by deciding that transfers through “mere conduits” are not protected. This is a major (and adverse) decision for lenders, bondholders and noteholders who receive payments through an intermediary such as a disbursing agent.

Back in October 2017, the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (“PAP”) was launched to very little fanfare. PAP is part of the Civil Procedure Rules which govern how parties deal with litigation claims through the County Court and is the first time that strict rules have been put in place for pre-action conduct on a debt matter. I wrote an article about PAP at the time to explain the ins and outs of it.

Much has already been said about the demise of Carillion and the impact of its liquidation on the various parties with whom it contracted. In this article, I would like to examine what light the demise of Carillion throws on themes commonly encountered within insolvency and whether there are lessons to be learned for everyone.

Having read the various reports in the press, it is clear that whilst Carillion entered into multi-billion pound government contracts, the contracts had extremely small profit margins, ultimately rendering the business unsustainable.

In a previous article, The Eagle and the Bear: Russian Proceedings Recognized Under Chapter 15, we discussed In re Poymanov, in which the Bankruptcy Court (SDNY) recognized a Russian foreign proceeding under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code even though the debtor had only nominal assets in the United States (the “Recognition Order”). The Bankruptcy Court had declined to rule upon recognition whether the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C.

In a previous article, Losing Momentive: A Roadmap to Higher Cramdown Interest Rates, we explored how the judicial cramdown interest rate cap was not gaining widespread traction as feared by many in response to the 2014 Momentive bench ruling upheld in a

When faced with bankruptcy proceedings, it is paramount that you act quickly in order to avoid unnecessary costs and stress.

The bankruptcy proceedings

Traditional thinking in the private placement noteholder community has been the “model form” approach to make-whole amounts created an enforceable liquidated damages claim in the event of voluntary or involuntary acceleration by the note issuer, including upon a bankruptcy filing. That thinking has been tested in the market as a result of a number of recent decisions involving public notes where courts have interpreted the specific indenture language to deny a make-whole claim.

Last year, we reported that Australia had proposed significant insolvency reforms that, in our view, are long overdue ("A Major Leap Forward for Australian Insolvency Laws").

On July 31, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recognized a Russian insolvency proceeding as a foreign main proceeding under chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (“Code”), concluding that (i) a retainer deposited with the debtor’s attorneys in the U.S. was sufficient property within the United States to establish jurisdiction over a debtor under section 109(a) of the Code and (ii) the Russian insolvency proceeding was not “manifestly contrary to public policy of the United States.”