The High Court has found that two directors and one former director of a company were in breach of their duties by causing the company to implement a reorganisation and a capital reduction when they were aware there was a risk it would lose its source of income.
In addition, the statutory statement of solvency supporting the capital reduction was invalid because the director had not formed the opinion set out in it. As a result, the capital reduction and a subsequent dividend were unlawful, and the directors were liable to repay the dividend.
What happened?
Possible application of Section 101(22)(A) to safe harbor’s covered entity requirement raises important questions for future transferee defendants.
Key Points:
• Merit Management raises the possibility that customers of “financial institutions” may qualify for protection under Section 546(e) safe harbor even if they would not otherwise meet Section 546(e)’s covered entity requirement.
• Treating customers of “financial institutions” as covered entities could broaden the scope of safe harbor.
The High Court has held that two director-shareholders of a company who were unsuccessfully prosecuted for fraud could not claim back the drop in the value of their shares when the company’s business failed.
What happened?
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) has published a consultation on insolvency and corporate governance.
The consultation is aimed primarily at improving corporate governance in firms that are in or approaching insolvency. However, it also puts forward proposals for improving the wider framework of corporate governance.
The key proposals from the consultation are set out below.
UK-based offshore and subsea oil & gas services company solidifies its position and completes ownership transfer to noteholders in major company milestone.
The decision in Mezhprom v Pugachev, which was handed down on 11 October 2017, has potentially wide-ranging ramifications for trustees and the private client industry more generally.
Although the judgment is a first instance decision and may be appealed, the approach taken by the judge in this case to the analysis of powers conferred on protectors is an important development.
Venezuela’s initiative is unlikely to set the stage for a restructuring of international obligations in the face of US sanctions.
Key Points:
• US sanctions will prohibit US persons from engaging in a restructuring of Venezuela and PdVSA debts that includes the issuance of “new” long term debt.
• Creditors should expect that enforcement action will follow a default. The outcomes of that enforcement action will affect all stakeholders, whether or not they participate.
Restructuring Announcement
Ruling overturns New York decision rejecting market-based approach.
Key Points:
• Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit requires courts to consider efficient market interest rate, if available, for purposes of chapter 11 “cramdown.”
• Second Circuit decision overturns lower court ruling that used “formula approach” to determine appropriate chapter 11 cramdown interest rate.
Cross-border debtors gain another tool to use against dissident creditors seeking to disrupt foreign restructuring proceedings.
Introduction
Ultra court clarifies the requirements for classifying a creditor as “unimpaired” under a plan of reorganization.
Key Points:
• Texas bankruptcy court splits from Third Circuit in finding that a creditor must receive everything it is entitled to under non-bankruptcy law in order for the creditor to be “unimpaired.”
• The decision does not require that unsecured creditors receive post-petition interest but provides that they will be “impaired” if they do not