Pursuant to the Companies (Miscellaneous Provisions) (COVID-19) Act 2020 (the COVID Act), “exceptional provision” to the operation of certain parts of the Companies Act 2014 (the Act) was made for a specific period of time, which period could be extended by order of the Government (the Interim Period). Yesterday, the government announced that it was extending the Interim Period until 31 December 2022.
A Bírósági Határozatok Gyűjteményében közzétett Gfv.VII.30.365/2020/5. számú határozatában a Kúria arra a következtetésre jutott, hogy az adós és a hitelező közötti szerződés felszámoló általi, Cstv. 47. § (1) bekezdés szerinti felmondása nem jogellenes, ebből következően az adóssal szemben a szerződés alapján a felmondás tényére tekintettel kártérítési igény nem érvényesíthető. A kártérítési felelősség megállapítására ugyanis jogellenes magatartás hiányában nem kerülhet sor.
An insolvency moratorium first introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic applies to nearly all Russian legal entities, individuals, and sole entrepreneurs, and bans the commencement of insolvency proceedings against Russian obligors.
In its unanimous decision, Ernst & Young Inc. v. Aquino, the Ontario Court of Appeal modified the common law doctrine of corporate attribution in the bankruptcy and insolvency context to uphold a decision of Ontario Superior Court’s Commercial List, which ordered a corporate officer and his associates, whom collectively orchestrated a fraudulent invoicing scheme, to repay over $30 million to company creditors pursuant to s. 96 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”).
Background
It begins with an awkward mouthful. Outside a bankruptcy brief, is “unimpairment” even a word? (No, per Merriam-Webster.) Inside Chapter 11, it’s much more: a trend.
Want to refinance your bonds cheaply? Are you an otherwise sound and solvent business, forced into bankruptcy by a massive fire (PG&E), persistent low commodity pricing (Ultra Petroleum), or a pandemic (Hertz, whose airport rental business was shuttered in 2020 by COVID-19)?
Or would you just prefer to boost your stock value by lowering your coupon?
This is how Tribune ends: not with a bang, but a whimper. The 12-year litigation saga, rooted in the spectacular failure of the media and sports conglomerate’s 2007 leveraged buyout, reached an end in late February with a curt “cert. denied” from the US Supreme Court.
Morgan Lewis was one of the firms that captained the defense for Tribune’s former shareholders. This post notes some lessons that we learned—and relearned.
Lesson One: Section 546(e)’s ‘New’ Safe Harbor
The US Supreme Court tends to hear a couple of bankruptcy cases per term. Most of these cases deal with interpreting provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. However, every few years or so, the Supreme Court decides a constitutional issue in bankruptcy. Some are agita-inducing (Northern Pipeline, Stern), some less so (Katz). The upcoming case is a little more nuanced, but could have major consequences.
Insight
Consider a lender that extends a term loan in the amount of $1 million to an entity debtor. The loan is guaranteed by the debtor’s owner. If both the debtor and the guarantor become subject to bankruptcy cases, it is settled that the lender has a claim of $1 million (ignoring interest and expenses) in each bankruptcy case. However, the lender cannot recover more than $1 million in total in the two cases combined. (Ivanhoe Building & Loan Ass'n of Newark, NJ v. Orr, 295 U.S. 243 (1935).)
When one party can unilaterally prevent a bankruptcy filing – action steps and best practices
Commodities Alert
Restructuring Alert
Winter is here, with the attendant risk of another major weather event impacting the energy production industry, and, specifically, the wind power generation industry in Texas. Last year, Winter Storm Uri significantly disrupted the Texas power grid and forced several energy originators, distributors, and buyers to consider restructuring alternatives.