Legislation implementing the EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive ("BRRD") in Netherlands law and facilitating the application of the EU Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation ("SRM Regulation") was approved by the Upper Chamber of the Netherlands parliament on 10 November 2015 and is expected to enter into force before the end of this year. The new law – the "European Framework for the Recovery and Resolution of Credit Institutions and Investment Firms Implementation Act" – will be referred to below as the "Implementation Act".
The number of companies declared bankrupt in Luxembourg has increased tremendously since 2009, reaching a record number of 1,026 in 2012. According to the Luxembourg authorities, this situation is mainly due to the current legislation, which is obsolete and no longer suited to modern financial difficulties.
In 2009, the Luxembourg government decided that the creation of appropriate tools for companies in financial distress was extremely important, especially in the post-crisis period, and decided to tackle this subject.
The June 2013 issue of Baseload included the article “A $400 Million Devil in the Details: The Cautionary Tale of the Chesapeake Par Call.” We published an update to that article in the January 2015 issue. On July 10, 2015, the District Court for the Southern District of New York held that Chesapeake is required to pay the noteholders the make-whole amount.
If repayment of debt is accelerated as a result of bankruptcy, are debtholders eligible to receive a make-whole premium? The answer from an increasing number of courts is, without specific language in the indenture, no. Indentures usually include specific language to protect investors by declaring that upon certain designated “bankruptcy events,” all outstanding securities issued under that indenture become immediately due and payable (without further action from the holders of the securities).
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.
On 27 May 2015, the bill for the Act implementing the European framework for the recovery and resolution of banks and investment firms (the "Implementation Act") and the explanatory memorandum thereto (the "Explanatory Memorandum") were published. The purpose of the Implementation Act is to implement the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive ("BRRD") and to facilitate the application of the Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation ("SRMR").
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
On 20 May 2015, after a three-year legislative process, a recast version of the European Insolvency Regulation (EIR) was adopted. For the most part, it will be applicable in approximately two years' time. The most important changes likely to affect the European restructuring landscape are a broader scope of application and new rules on COMI. The recast regulation also introduces a framework for group insolvency proceedings.
© 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