Senior Transeastern Lenders v. Official Comm. Of Unsecured Creditors of TOUSA, Inc. (In re TOUSA, Inc.), 2012 US App. LEXIS 9796 (11th Cir. May 15, 2012)

English schemes of arrangement under the Companies Act 2006 (Schemes) have been increasingly used by non-English companies as a powerful tool to restructure their financial indebtedness. Recent prominent examples of German companies that have utilized Schemes to cramdown non-consenting or “holdout” creditors in order to restructure the company’s balance sheet include TeleColumbus, Rodenstock and Primacom.

There are several reasons for this trend:

“In chapter 11, a creditor should be able to assert the full amount of any guarantee claim against the debtor without reducing the claim for recoveries against another obligor.”

“Whether the Nortel Senior Notes will be entitled to post-petition interest, and at what rate, in the chapter 11 cases are open questions that may hinge, among other things, on proving solvency of the Nortel chapter 11 debtors.”

A recent opinion from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of New York shows that even the best laid strategies can return to haunt the insiders of a debtor.  In Wallach v.

We would like to introduce you to a great new feature of the revised German Insolvency Act which makes debt-equity-swaps in Germany (e.g., as part of loan-to-own transactions) a lot more attractive. It eliminates troubles caused by change-of-control provisions in agreements between an insolvent company and third parties.

Introduction: Debt-Equity- Swaps Now Possible Under German Insolvency Act

Prepayment provisions are intended, in part, to protect lenders in a depressed market from losses resulting from the costs of replacing their loans sooner than expected and having to relend at rates lower than those originally charged.  A New York federal district court recently upheld a bankruptcy judge's ruling denying a lender's claim for a $7.5 million prepayment premium against a borrower-debtor.¹ The lender must have been both surprised and disappointed to learn from the courts' decisions that this result could have been avoided had the lender's loan documents included

Amendments to the rules of deductibility of interest expenses

Further restrictions to deductibility of interest expenses incurred in relation to a share purchase¹

Senior lenders often insist that subordinate lenders assign to them, under subordination and intercreditor agreements, their right to vote on a plan of reorganization proposed for the borrower should it end up in chapter 11.  The intention of such assignments is to prevent junior lenders from facilitating or preventing confirmation of bankruptcy plans contrary to the desires of senior lenders.  Lenders should be aware, however, that courts disagree whether such plan voting rights assignments are enforceable.  In fact, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Mas

On April 26, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States adopted amendments to Rule 2019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (Amended Rule 2019) and submitted the proposed amendment to Congress for approval. Amended Rule 2019 was approved by Congress and became effective on December 1, 2011. The rule governs certain disclosure requirements for groups consisting of multiple creditors or equity security holders acting in concert in Chapter 9 or Chapter 11 cases.

The Court of Appeal in England has unanimously upheld a first instance decision that a Financial Support Direction (FSD) issued by the Pensions Regulator to an entity after it has commenced insolvency proceedings will rank as an expense of the administration, therefore affording it superpriority over floating charge holders and other unsecured creditors. This decision has significant implications for lenders to groups with UK defined benefit pension plans if any of their security is taken as a floating charge.