In late December 2014, Russia adopted major changes to its insolvency (bankruptcy) law. Critically, the changes introduced the long-awaited regulation of individual insolvency (personal bankruptcy), with the aim of closing the regulatory gap and supporting individual debtors struggling during Russia's economic downturn.1 Some time has passed since the initial draft law on individual insolvency (personal bankruptcy) was first delivered to the Russian Parliament back in 2012.

Nigel Barnett talks about bribes and other proprietary rights in insolvencies.

Introduction

For over 150 years, it has been a principle of English law that if an agent takes a bribe or a secret commission, he is liable to account to his principal for the amount received. However, there has been conflicting authority and academic debate as to whether the principal merely has a personal claim against the agent or whether he can assert a proprietary claim to the monies received and any profits made therefrom.

Changes may be coming to the Bankruptcy Code that may affect secured creditors.^[1] In 2012, the American Bankruptcy Institute established a Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 (the “ABI Commission”). The ABI Commission is composed of many well-respected restructuring practitioners, including two of the original drafters of the Bankruptcy Code, whose advice holds great weight in the restructuring community.

Changes may be coming to the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor provisions.[1] In 2012 the American Bankruptcy Institute established a Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 (the “ABI Commission”), composed of many well-respected restructuring practitioners, including two of the original drafters of the Bankruptcy Code, whose advice holds great weight in the restructuring community.

This article first appeared in the December 2014 edition of Corporate Rescue & Insolvency journal. Written by Deepak Reddy in Dentons' New York office, Carlo Vairo in Dentons’ Toronto office and Alexander Hewitt in Dentons' London office.

Key Points

When undergoing a restructuring, a borrower/officeholder's main focus is often the company's lenders. However, there are occasions when HMRC's agreement can be just as key to ensuring any process runs smoothly. In this article, Sonia Jordan and Hayley Çapani discuss some key areas where HMRC's agreement is essential to ensuring a smooth restructuring or insolvency process.

On October 17, 2014, the Delaware Supreme Court held that under the Delaware Uniform Commercial Code, the subjective intent of a secured party is irrelevant in determining the effectiveness of a UCC-3 termination statement if the secured party authorized its filing.[1]  

Background

Recent case law reminds practitioners and lenders to pay careful attention when drafting prepayment premium provisions in debt instruments or risk having the premiums disallowed in a borrower’s bankruptcy case.

This newsletter refers to Restructuring, Insolvency and Bankruptcy news of November 2014.

H.A.M.A.C: adoption de la première sauvegarde accélérée

Le 19 septembre 2014, le tribunal de commerce de Nanterre a ouvert la toute première procédure de sauvegarde accélérée au bénéfice de H.A.M.A.C, la société holding du groupe Alma Consulting, auquel appartient le cabinet de conseil Alma Consulting Group.

In In re MPM Silicones, LLC, Case No. 14-22503 (RDD) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2014) (Momentive), the court dismissed a senior lien creditors’ suit alleging that the junior lien creditors breached an intercreditor agreement (ICA) with respect to shared collateral by taking and supporting certain actions adverse to the senior lien creditors.

BACKGROUND