© 2015 Hunton & Williams LLP 1 May 2015 Oak Rock Financial District Court Addresses the Applicable Legal Standard for True Participation Agreements The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently applied two tests, the True Participation Test and the Disguised Loan Test, to determine whether agreements were true participation agreements or disguised loans.1 In addition, the District Court noted that the most important question in such a determination is the risk of loss allocation in the transaction, and that if an alleged participant is not subject to the

In Quadrant Structured Products Company, Ltd. v. Vertin, the Delaware Court of Chancery made two key rulings concerning the rights of creditors to bring derivative lawsuits against corporate directors.¹  First,  the court held that there is no continuous insolvency requirement during the pendency of the lawsuit.

Key Points:

Principals or contractors dealing with insolvent downstream companies should ensure they can properly substantiate any counterclaims.

Usually a principal is not entitled to rely on a set-off or counterclaim to resist court proceedings to recover a debt under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic) (SOP Act). However because of the operation of section 553C of the Corporations Act, the situation is different if the claimant is in liquidation.

Insolvent subcontractor’s claim

In two recent cases, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has indicated that Section 316(b) of Trust Indenture Act of 19391 (the “TIA”) requires unanimous consent for out-of- court restructurings that impair bondholders’ practical ability to receive payments, even if the bondholders’ technical, legal ability to receive payments remains intact.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently entered an order confirming that when a fraudulent transfer defendant is able to establish a defense pursuant to 11 U.S.C.

On November 5, 2014, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Virginia issued a noteworthy opinion that runs counter to what many Virginia law practitioners assume to be the common law in Virginia – i.e., that a manager of a Virginia limited liability company owes a fiduciary duty of loyalty to the limited liability company.

Key Points:

There are three things prudent insolvency practitioners can do when left with non-company assets.

A not too infrequent issue for insolvency practitioners: what can you do with unclaimed assets of third parties? Clayton Utz recently acted for the receivers and managers of Arcabi Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (known as “The Rare Coin Company”) and developed a strategy to deal with the issue.

Background

Key Points:

Courts will limit an administrator's liability where proposed funding is to be used directly to advance an agenda consistent with the objects of Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act.

A recent decision of the NSW Supreme Court highlights the flexibility of Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act and the ability of administrators to seek orders protecting their interests and facilitating restructures, and was the first stage of what promises to be a novel and challenging administration (In the matter of Nexus Energy Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1041).

The United States District Court for the District of Delaware recently entered a Memorandum Opinion (the “District Court Opinion”) concerning the constitutional sufficiency of the publication of the bar date notice in the New Century bankruptcy as it applies to unknown creditors.1 The District Court vacated the Bankruptcy Court’s August 30, 2013,order (the “Constructive Notice Order”), which had approved the constitutional sufficiency of notice to unknown creditors by publication in The Wall Street Journal and the Orange County Register.

Key Points:

This case presented a difficult and unique set of circumstances for the court to navigate while the scheme clock was ticking.

The recent approval of the David Jones scheme of arrangement demonstrates how, in the absence of shareholder opposition, the inexorability of a scheme timetable can cause problems for a court when there is a major development after the first court hearing.