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.
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.
The Third Circuit recently held that claims purchased from trade creditors by a claims trader will be disallowed under section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code when the seller of the claim received, and did not repay, a preference. In doing so, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit expressed its disagreement with a relatively recent decision in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York which reached the opposite conclusion.
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.
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
A make-whole premium is a lump-sum payment that becomes due under a financing agreement when repayment occurs before the stated maturity date, thereby depriving the lender of all future interest payments bargained for under the agreement. Make-whole provisions, ubiquitous in the bond market, are becoming more prevalent in commercial loan transactions, including in the distressed context. That trend is spurred by favorable court rulings for lenders enforcing make-whole premiums when the borrower files for bankruptcy protection.
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).
The First Circuit Court of Appeals has recently held in Sun Capital Partners III, LP v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund, No. 12-2312 (July 24, 2013), a case of first impression at the Circuit Court level, that a private equity fund that exercises sufficient control over a portfolio company may be considered a “trade or business” for purposes of Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
The UK's bank regulatory and insolvency law structures were unprepared for the global financial crisis. As a result, the UK government's response to intense bank stress in the immediate aftermath of the crunch led to a number of somewhat unsatisfactory ad hoc solutions ranging from nationalisations to encouraging otherwise healthy institutions to take over weaker banks. Generally speaking, there was a criticism, fairly made perhaps, that profits were privatised and losses had been socialised.