Historically, investment grade debt with a make-whole provision was fairly straightforward. At any time during the life of the instrument, the issuer had the right to redeem the debt. But the price to be paid included the discounted value of the remaining payments of principal and interest over the life of the debt. Because the cost of paying the “make-whole” is often significant, issuers seldom redeem bonds when they are required to pay the make-whole price.

Op 23 juni 2015 zijn de wetsvoorstellen civielrechtelijk bestuursverbod en herziening strafbaarstelling faillissementsfraude door de Tweede Kamer aangenomen. Beide wetsvoorstellen behoren tot het Wetgevingsprogramma Herijking Faillissementsrecht en zijn gericht op fraudebestrijding. Deze wetsvoorstellen zullen mogelijk op 1 januari 2016 in werking treden. 

Het wetgevingsprogramma Herijking Faillissementsrecht bestaat uit drie pijlers, te weten (i) fraudebestrijding; (ii) versterking van het reorganiserend vermogen van bedrijven; en (iii) modernisering van het faillissementsrecht.

On May 4, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion regarding a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (the “First Circuit”).1 The question on appeal was whether debtor Louis Bullard (“Bullard”) could immediately appeal the bankruptcy court’s order denying confirmation of his proposed Chapter 13 payment plan (the “Plan”).2 The Court held that denial of confirmation of a debtor’s plan is not a final, appealable order.3  

Case Background

© 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.

In its judgment dated 2 September 2014, the Court of Appeal in The Hague ruled that moveable assets obtained subject to a retention of title (eigendomsvoorbehoud) should be considered future assets, and that ownership of such assets will be acquired after satisfaction of the relevant condition precedent (typically, full payment of the purchase price). A right of pledge over future assets created in advance will not be valid if the pledgor goes bankrupt before acquiring ownership of such assets.

In a judgment dated 20 March 2015, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that all banks and intermediaries involved in the execution of a bank transfer, including the bank responsible for recording receipt of the bank transfer into the account held with it by the payee, qualify as parties whose services are directly or indirectly used by the payor in connection with the bank transfer.

Een failliet bedrijf kan aanlopen tegen handhavingsacties van bestuursorganen. Hierbij kan bijvoorbeeld worden gedacht aan verontreiniging van gronden onder een industrieel bedrijf, waartegen het bestuursorgaan optreedt door oplegging van lasten met sanering van de gronden als doel. Het bestuursorgaan komt dan de curator als beheerder van de boedel tegen. Kunnen bestuursorganen die bevoegd zijn om tegen bepaalde overtredingen op te treden nu de curator aanspreken tot naleving van de wettelijke verplichtingen ten aanzien van de milieuverontreiniging die voorheen op de onderneming rustten?

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.