Delaware Bankruptcy Court Holds that Private Equity Firm And Its Portfolio Company Are Not Liable Under Federal WARN Act

The Federal Court found that where a trust deed provides for the cessation of a corporate trustee upon the appointment of an administrator or upon a resolution for its liquidation (and there is no replacement trustee appointed), the corporate trustee retains its right of indemnity and continues as bare trustee but does not have the power to sell the trust assets.  However, the Court was persuaded to grant relief to the liquidators of the trustee (who had sold trust assets) on the basis they had not been advised by their solicitors of the disqualification clause and they com

Your good client Michael Bluth calls you from the Delaware bankruptcy court. Now that his family’s business, The Bluth Company, has filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code and his late nights with DIP lenders and our bankruptcy colleagues have come to a temporary pause, Michael’s ready to turn back to his typical day-to-day job running his business.

Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code is designed to provide an effective mechanism to aid insolvency proceedings in foreign countries that involve a foreign debtor with assets, creditors and other parties in interest located in the foreign country as well as in United States. A foreign representative that is authorized to administer the foreign reorganization or liquidation or act as a representative of the foreign proceeding is the party who applies to the US bankruptcy court for recognition of the foreign proceeding.

New criteria set out by the Bank of Spain will have a binding nature for supervised financial entities

Introduction

On 30 April 2013 the supervisory body of the Bank of Spain sent a formal communication to the financial entities subject to its supervision containing the criteria to be used with regard to the definition, documentation, follow-up and review of credit refinancing and restructuring transactions (the Communication).

Eurosail’s journey has come to an end: the Supreme Court rejects the “point of no return” test, returns to balance sheet basics.

John Houghton, European Head of Restructuring and Co-Global Chair of Bankruptcy and Restructuring remarks:

Companies with certain specific connections to Hong Kong are increasingly likely to fall under Hong Kong jurisdiction and Hong Kong’s Companies Ordinance. Both creditors and debtors will benefit from the clarity provided by the recent judgment in the case Re Pioneer Iron and Steel Group. Hong Kong’s Companies Ordinance expressly provides for the possibility of petitioning to liquidate, or wind-up, companies incorporated outside of Hong Kong.

On April 1, 2013, Judge Christopher Klein, Chief Judge of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California, ruled that the City of Stockton, California, could proceed with its chapter 9 bankruptcy filing. Judge Klein’s decision affirmed Stockton’s status as the largest US city (population 300,000) to have successfully sought bankruptcy protection and proceed with bankruptcy.1 Judge Klein’s comments on the record may also signal that the resolution of Stockton’s chapter 9 will require the impairment of the city’s pension obligations.

Introduction

On 29 January 2013, the Federal Court of Australia made orders approving the creditors’ scheme of arrangement between Nine Entertainment Group Pty Limited (NEG) and its senior and mezzanine lenders (Nine Scheme).

The Nine Scheme, made under Part 5.1 of the Corporations Act, follows Alinta and Centro as the third debt for equity restructuring of a major Australian company in as many years.

This is the second case in which the New South Wales Supreme Court has granted an extension of time for registration of a security interest on the Personal Property Securities Register where the delay is accidental or due to inadvertence.  However, the extension in this case was conditional firstly, by preserving the priority of another security interest which had been registered in the meantime and secondly, because there was insufficient evidence of the financial position of the grantor to establish that an extension was unlikely to prejudice other creditors or shareholde