Introduction

This article was published in a slightly different form in the November 2016 issue of Futures & Derivatives Law by The Journal on the Law of Investment & Risk Management Products.

Introduction

After months of public consultations and revision, the Singapore parliament passed the Companies (Amendment) Bill (the "Bill") on 10 March 2017 amending the Singapore Companies Act (the "Companies Act"). The Bill contains, among others, significant and novel changes to Singapore's insolvency laws. This is no doubt a giant step towards positioning Singapore as Asia Pacific's Debt Restructuring Hub with cross-border restructuring capabilities.

Introduction - The Bill

Securing support from principal creditors makes all the difference between a chapter 11 restructuring that saves a troubled shipping company and one that sinks it.

When a shipping company's financial distress is extreme, it must work fast to preserve value and stem losses. The use of chapter 11 by shipping companies to coerce principal creditors to support an unfavorable restructuring where ownership refuses to share risk is costly, value destructive and generally fruitless.

In Russian insolvency procedures, it is quite common for third parties to try to exclude property from a debtor’s insolvent estate (konkursnaya massa) by claiming title to its real property in the absence of the registered title. These third parties may refer to the agreements that had been made prior to the commencement of the insolvency procedure as well as to the actual transfer of property to them.

A recent judgment of the German Federal Fiscal Court (FFC) will have significant impact on the restructuring tool kit afforded under German law. The FFC has found that the existing practice of permitting a tax liability arising from restructuring gains to be deferred and (eventually) waived violates fundamental principles of German law. The ruling has created uncertainty regarding the proper tax treatment of restructuring gains, which may have the effect of diminishing the prospect of success of a restructuring for a company in financial distress.

For many litigants, the decision whether to prosecute or defend a lawsuit vigorously boils down to a rather basic calculus: What are my chances of success? What is the potential recovery or loss? Is this a "bet the company" litigation? And, how much will I have to pay the lawyers? In many respects, it is not all that different from a poker player eyeing his chip stack and deciding whether the pot odds and implied odds warrant the call of a big bet.

For many litigants, the decision whether to prosecute or defend a lawsuit vigorously boils down to a rather basic calculus: What are my chances of success? What is the potential recovery or loss? Is this a “bet the company” litigation? And, how much will I have to pay the lawyers? In many respects, it is not all that different from a poker player eyeing his chip stack and deciding whether the pot odds and implied odds warrant the call of a big bet.

Overview

In IBRC v Camden[1], the Court of Appeal held that a lender's express contractual power to market a loan was not subject to an implied limitation that doing so should not interfere with the borrower's ability to obtain the best price for the assets securing the loan. In so doing, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed the "cardinal rule" that an implied term must not contradict any express term of the agreement.

Background

On January 17, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rendered a much anticipated decision in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Corp., No. 15-2124-cv(L), 15-2141-cv(CON), reversing the Southern District of New York's holding that only a non-consensual amendment to an indenture's core payment terms violates Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act (TIA).