Can state regulatory agencies move ahead with lawsuits against businesses who file for bankruptcy in order to enforce consumer protection and business laws, or does the automatic stay’s broad injunctive sweep capture those actions? The answer depends on whether the state is acting in its regulatory capacity or simply like another creditor – and the distinction is not always clear.

Since filing for Chapter 11 in May 2020, Hertz and its major stakeholders have been in negotiations and, at times, disputes over how best to reduce Hertz’s nearly half-a-million vehicle fleet. These negotiations and disputes have caught the eye of investors in asset-backed securities (“ABS”) and market watchers alike, as the outcome of the case could have rippling effects across the ABS industry and capital markets, generally.

In a pair of private exchange offers consummated in May 2020, airport operating companies owned by Corporacin Amrica Airports S.A. (NYSE: CAAP) in Argentina and Uruguay were able to restructure their existing debt securities in order to withstand the substantial revenue declines associated with the drop-off in air travel as a result of the coronavirus pandemic ("COVID-19").

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“CIGA“) ushered in a flexible restructuring compromise or arrangement for companies in financial difficulty (the “Restructuring Plan“). The legislation governing the Restructuring Plan sits alongside that for schemes of arrangement and is included in a new Part 26A to the Companies Act 2006.

The Restructuring Plan does not apply to companies that are solvent with no risk of insolvency; rather it only applies to companies where two conditions have been satisfied:

Esta é a primeira edição do “Brasília em Pauta”, um boletim preparado pela equipe de Contencioso de Brasília, contendo os principais casos a serem julgados pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF), Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ) e Tribunal de Contas da União (TCU), bem como importantes questões a serem votadas pela Câmara dos Deputados e Senado Federal.

Australia and the United States have much in common. We have a shared history, a common language, and a similar common law-based legal system governing a federated nation occupying a large land mass blessed with abundant natural and human resources. The United States is one of Australia’s greatest trading partners, and we welcome inward investment from the U.S. with most favoured nation trade terms. We also enjoy a friendship and strategic alliance that goes back over a century.

On August 11, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed lower court decisions rejecting Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc.’s (“LBSF”) attempt to recover nearly $1 billion in payments to noteholders and enforcing certain Priority Provisions (defined below) that subordinated payments otherwise payable to LBSF under related swap transactions.

So you have a freezing order against a start-up company, now what? Can that start-up use the assets which are the subject of your order, or any of its other assets, to continue to pursue its risky business, or must it stay idle and wait for the inevitable?

Almost 12 years after the commencement of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy case, we now know the answer to one of that case’s most interesting questions—namely, whether so-called “flip clauses” are protected settlement payments or void as ipso facto bankruptcy provisions.

In a report to several Congressional committees, GAO reviewed proposed and enacted changes to the U.S.