Intercreditor agreements between multiple lenders are part and parcel of lending to a company with several tranches of debt. Under section 510 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”), “[a] subordination agreement is enforceable in a case under this title to the same extent that such agreement is enforceable under applicable nonbankruptcy law.” 11 U.S.C. § 510(a) (West 2017).

The sole shareholder of several closely held corporate entities engages in a fraudulent transfer by extinguishing one entity’s right to payment from a third party in exchange for the release of liabilities owed by other entities to that same third party. In Motorworld, Inc. v. William Benkendorf, et al., __ N.J. __ (Mar. 30, 2017), the New Jersey Supreme Court voided such a transfer against a Chapter 7 debtor corporation whose sole asset was a $600,000 loan receivable purportedly cancelled by the release.

Summary: Political uncertainty, increasing inflation, threat of interest rate rises and insecurity of overseas investment. Should real estate lenders remind themselves of the enforcement available if things go awry? Much has changed since the 2008 financial crisis; much for the better. In this article we look at the main enforcement options and suggest some factors that could result in a new approach to restructuring and enforcing real estate loans.

Enforcement Options

The Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated ruling in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 580 U.S. ___ (2017)1 on March 21, reversing the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ affirmance of an order approving the distribution of the proceeds of settlement of bankruptcy estate causes of action to general unsecured creditors via structured dismissal, with no distribution to holders of priority wage claims.

The Court framed the question presented, and its ruling, very narrowly—twice. First:

In a very recent decision, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York determined that a negative inference to an exception to a negative covenant prevented a company from undertaking a proposed restructuring transaction. We find the case unique not because of the result necessarily, but rather because the court used the negative inference to override another express provision in the Credit Agreement.

Although there has been much discussion of the Second Circuit’s recent decision in Marblegate, this article addresses a question other commentators have yet to tackle: namely, how the Second Circuit’s decision impacts the Trust Indenture Act’s protection of guarantee obligations included in an indenture. Below we provide our view on how Marblegate affects indenture guarantees. More specifically, we discuss how the decision is consistent with provisions of the TIA that expressly protect a noteholder’s payment rights under a guarantee.

Synopsis

Summary: The Insolvency Rules 2016 will come into force on 6 April 2017. This article highlights some of the main areas of change.

The long awaited Insolvency Rules 2016 (the “2016 Rules”) were laid before Parliament on 25 October 2016, and will come into force on 6 April 2017. The Insolvency Rules 1986 (the “1986 Rules”) and all amending legislation will be repealed. The 2016 Rules aim to:

Summary: On 8 September 2016 Mr Justice Snowden handed down his judgment in Glenn Maud v Aabar Block Sarl & others [2016] EWHC 2175 (Ch) in which he considered how the court should deal with a bankruptcy petition where the petitioning creditor may have an ulterior purpose for seeking a bankruptcy order.

A client who is building a large mixed use development called me yesterday with a dilemma. He had received a letter from a local equipment supplier, who was on the verge of bankruptcy because the sub-contractor who had engaged him had gone into administration after the hire period had come to an end. He was pleading with my client to help him recover some £20,000 of hire fees still owed to him.

Summary: Customers of a company in administration were entitled, as against a factor, to exercise equitable set-off in respect of entitlements to rebates that had arisen between the customers and the company notwithstanding the assignment of the customer’s debts to the factor.

Bibby Factors Northwest Ltd v HFD Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1908 (17 December 2015)

Background