You are about to enter a new dimension. A world not only of law and of the Insolvency Act 1986, but of equity. You are about to enter… The Twilight Trust Zone!
Cash-flow is the life blood of a company. As a company fails the flow of this vital sustenance grows weaker. The heart stutters and fails. The company is dying. Worse, it is unable to meet its liabilities as they fall due, and so fails one of the statutory tests of insolvency.
Introduction
In the recent High Court decision in Bilta (UK) Ltd (In liquidation) and others v Nazir and others [2012] EWHC (Ch), the court considered the application of the legal doctrine of ‘ex turpi causa non oritur actio’ in the context of fraud.
The Bankruptcy Code provides a number of “safe harbors” for forward contracts and other derivatives. These provisions exempt derivatives from a number of Bankruptcy Code provisions, including portions of the automatic stay,1 restrictions on terminating executory contracts,2 and the method for calculating rejection damages.3 The safe harbor provisions also protect counterparties to certain types of contracts from the avoidance actions created under Chapter 5 of the Bankruptcy Code, such as the preference and fraudulent transfer statutes.4
The issues concerning validity of appointment, which arose following the decision in Minmar Limited v Khalastchi have been considered in a number of recent cases, most recently BXL Services Limited [2012] EWHC 1877 (Ch).
In these parlous economic times, more businesses are facing increased financial pressure, resulting in periods of stressful trading. In such cases, consideration needs to be given to the development of a sound strategy that allows the company to successfully continue to trade and pay its creditors.
The purpose of this article is to address some of the “tools” available to assist directors in the restructuring of a company.
- Introduction
Recent cases interpreting Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. § 101, et seq., as amended) (the “Bankruptcy Code”) suggest that there are different standards for recognizing whether domestic entities and foreign entities have filed insolvency proceedings in the proper venue.
The Bankruptcy Abuse, Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, which was signed into law in the United States on April 20, 2005 and went into effect, for the most part, on October 17, 2005, created a new chapter of the United States Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. 101, et seq., as amended) (the “Bankruptcy Code”) – Chapter 15. Chapter 15 replaces and modifies the earlier Bankruptcy Code sections that dealt with multi-national insolvency proceedings.
The new Insolvency rules which came into force on 23rd February 2012 provide that when presenting a Petition, the Petitioning Creditor must now conduct an initial search to ascertain whether any other petitions have been presented against the debtor within the previous 18 months.
On July 9, 2012, the Seventh Circuit decided in Sunbeam1 that the rejection of a trademark license by a bankrupt trademark licensor does not deprive the trademark licensee of its right to continue to use the trademark, and disagreed with the 1985 Fourth Circuit decision in Lubrizol2 that held to the contrary.3 In reaction to the Lubrizol decision, which held that the rejection of a license by a bankrupt licensor of intellectual property terminated the rights of the licensee, Congress enacted Section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy
The Issue
The issue is whether the insolvency of a borrower under a non-recourse loan can trigger recourse liability for itself and its “bad boy,” non-recourse carve-out guarantors.