Capital measures are common reorganisation measures when a capital company is in financial crisis, including eg injection of fresh capital by way of a capital increase. The implementation of capital measures during financial crisis is often a source of dispute amongst shareholders, in particular if the capital measures are driven by a financially strong majority shareholder.
On July 9, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued its decision in Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC (“Sunbeam”). It is a landmark opinion for trademark licensees whose licenses are rejected in bankruptcy by trademark owners.
In Loop 76, LLC, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit (the “BAP”) recently held that a bankruptcy court may consider whether a creditor received a third party source of payment (e.g., a guaranty) when determining whether that creditor’s claim is “substantially similar” to other claims for purposes of plan classification under 11 U.S.C. § 1122(a). In re Loop 76, LLC, 465 B.R. 525 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2012).
The Slovenian legislation includes the following types of in rem securities relating to: (i) real properties – mortgage (hipoteka), land debt (zemljiški dolg), real encumbrance (stvarno breme); and (ii) movables and property rights, respectively – pledge (zastavna pravica), retention of title (pridržek lastninske pravice), transfers by way of security (prenos v zavarovanje), and assignment by way of security (odstop v zavarovanje).
Under Bulgarian law, security interests over assets can be created by way of a pledge (залог) of chattels and receivables or a mortgage (ипотека) over real property.
Austrian law recognises pledges (Pfandrechte), security transfers (Sicherungsübereignungen) and security assignments (Sicherungszession).
According to article 11 of Poland’s Bankruptcy and reorganisation law as of 28 Feb-ruary 2003 (Journal of laws 2009, No. 175, position 1361, as amended), a debtor who is a legal person (including, in particular, a limited liability company) is considered to be insolvent when the value of its liabilities exceeds the value of its assets, even if the debtor continues to pay its liabilities (balance sheet insolvency).
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision on May 29, 2012, finding that a chapter 11 bankruptcy plan of liquidation is not confirmable over a secured lender’s objection if such plan prohibits the lender from credit bidding at a sale of its collateral.1 See RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC et al. v. Amalgamated Bank, No. 11-166, 566 U.S. ___ (2012).
On May 14, 2012, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in In re Heritage Highgate, Inc., et al., No. 11-1889 (3d Cir. May 14, 2012) clarified the burden of proof with respect to the valuation and ultimate allowance of alleged secured claims under Bankruptcy Code section 506(a).
In Senior Transeastern Lenders v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (In re TOUSA, Inc.), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “Bankruptcy Court”) in which the Bankruptcy Court avoided the liens given by TOUSA’s subsidiaries to new lenders and permitted the recovery of the proceeds of the new loan from other TOUSA lenders that had taken the funds in repayment of their TOUSA guaranteed loans.