In Meadowside Building Developments Ltd (in liquidation) –v- 12-18 Hill Street Management Company Ltd [2019] EWHC 2651 (TCC), the Court found that in certain circumstances, it is possible for companies in liquidation to legitimately engage in adjudication proceedings.
Background
Historically, there has been some doubt as to whether or not an Adjudicator has jurisdiction to make a decision if the referring party was insolvent. This was due to the fundamental incompatibility between the adjudication process and the insolvency regime.
The National Economic Research Associates ("NERA"), an economic consulting firm, demonstrated in a recent article how economic analysis can be used to assess allegations related to credit default swaps ("CDS") and the creditworthiness of a company.
On August 9, 2019, in a unanimous decision (written by a former bankruptcy judge), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the confirmation of the Peabody Energy Chapter 11 plan (“Plan”)1 with a prominent backstopped rights offering component.
Following a recent government consultation, new draft legislation is expected this summer which will render HMRC as a “secondary preferential creditor” in insolvencies that commence on or after 6 April 2020. The government’s objective is to ensure that more tax which is collected on behalf of HMRC (circa £1.9bn) is actually paid to HMRC and used to fund public services, and is not distributed to pay other creditors.
Section 127 of the Insolvency Act renders void any disposition of property by a company made in the period between presentation of the winding up petition and the making of a winding up order on that petition unless the court orders otherwise. Guidance on applications for validation orders is given in the Insolvency Practice Direction (“PD”).
On June 19, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the “Third Circuit”) affirmed a ruling of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “District Court”) dismissing challenges by certain first lien creditors of Texas Competitive Electric Holdings LLC (“TCEH”) to the plan distributions and adequate protection payments made during TCEH’s bankruptcy case.
In Mission Product Holdings, the Supreme Court Endorses “Rejection-as-Breach” Rule and Interprets Broadly the Contract Rights that Survive Rejection
Last year, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Merit, unanimously ruling that a buyout transaction between private parties did not qualify for “safe harbor” protection under Bankruptcy Code section 546(e), on the basis that a “financial institution” acted as an intermediary in the overarching transaction.
On March 18, 2019, Judge Stuart M. Bernstein of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision enforcing a mortgage lender’s claim for a prepayment premium (a/k/a make-whole or yield maintenance premium) notwithstanding the lender’s prepetition acceleration of the loan due to the debtor’s default.
We are all accustomed to seeing change of control as a mandatory prepayment event, if not an event of default, under subscription line facilities. Even the strongest sponsors accept that a lender’s analysis of a transaction is based on the current management of the fund, such that any change in control should trigger at least the right to prepayment and cancellation. While there are often points for negotiation, this premise is almost universal.