On 12 December 2013, our client, Magyar Telecom B.V. (the “Company”), a Dutch holding company of the Invitel group of companies (the “Group”) and one of the leading telecommunication services providers in Hungary, completed the restructuring of its €345 million 9.5% Senior Secured Notes due 2016 (the “Notes”).
On January 10, 2014, the Federal Executive Branch of México published in the Official Gazette the legal amendments to México’s Commercial Bankruptcy Law (Ley de Concursos Mercantiles, or LCM), effecting the most comprehensive set of changes to the LCM since its enactment over 13 years ago, and establishing new rules for bankruptcy proceedings in México with the intent to improve the position of creditors dealing with the insolvency of local companies.
On January 17, 2014 the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued a ruling in Fisker Automotive Holdings, Inc., et. al., Case No. 13-13087 (KG), which highlights potential risks to both secured creditors and purchasers of claims in bankruptcy section 363 sales. The facts in Fisker are straightforward. Fisker was founded in 2007 to make high-end electric cars and was financed principally with federal and state government loans secured by some, but not all, of Fisker’s assets.
A crisis far beyond anything experienced in recent memory
The way in which regulators, investors, banks and governments respond to the current sovereign debt challenges will echo for many years. Decisions made today will, for better or worse, continue to have consequences far beyond our current time horizon. Getting it right will not be easy.
On 5 November 2013, the European Commission launched a consultation on its proposed new guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (“the draft R&R guidelines”) which will replace the current R&R guidelines adopted in 2004. The revision of the 2004 guidelines was postponed a number of times as a result of the financial crisis, during which the Commission applied a special R&R regime for the financial sector. At the time, the Commission was still considering adopting new R&R rules applicable to both the financial sector and the real economy.
In In re KB Toys,1 a recent decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court held that a claim that is disallowable under § 502(d)2 if held by the original claimant is also disallowable in the hands of a purchaser or subsequent transferee. In other words, if a creditor sells or assigns its claim to a claims trader and the creditor later becomes liable on a preference or fraudulent transfer,3 the claim may be disallowed in the hands of the claims trader if the creditor fails to pay the amount it owes to the estate.
This issue reviews the most important recent changes to the regime of challenging transactions made by debtors in anticipation of insolvency. These changes were introduced in the Resolution adopted at the Plenary Session of the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation (the “Supreme Commercial Court”) No. 63 “Certain Matters Relating to the Application of Chapter III.1 of the Federal Law “On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)”1 dated 23 December 2010 (the “Resolution”).2
An employer that sponsors a single-employer defined benefit pension plan was acquired by a Japanese parent. The employer entered into bankruptcy and, as part of the proceedings, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the “PBGC”) terminated the pension plan. The PBGC then sought in federal court to recover the amount of the unfunded liability from the Japanese parent. The PBGC also sought payment of the termination premium designed to be payable when a reorganizing company emerges from bankruptcy and to collect that premium from the parent. The pare
28 June 2013 the Russian President signed Federal Law No. 134-FZ amending a number of laws in relation to combating illegal financial operations.
The Law amended, in particular, the Law on Banks and Banking Activity, the Anti-Money Laundering Law, the Criminal Code and the Code of Administrative Offenses, the Law on State Registration of Legal Entities, the Bankruptcy Law, laws regarding certain financial organizations, and the Tax Code. Below is a summary of the key changes (save for those made to the Tax Code).
On July 24, 2013 the First Circuit Court of Appeals, applying an “investment plus” test, concluded that a Sun Capital private equity investment fund was engaged in a “trade or business” for purposes of determining whether the fund could be jointly and severally liable under ERISA for the unfunded pension withdrawal liability of the portfolio company.1 Two Sun Capital investment funds, conveniently named Sun Capital Partners III, LP (“Fund III”) and Sun Capital Partners IV, LP, (“Fund IV”) (the “Sun Funds”) collectively owned 100 percent of Scott Brass, Inc.