The United States District Court for the District of Delaware recently affirmed a Bankruptcy Court decision that invalidated the use by creditors of so-called “triangular”, or non-mutual, setoffs in which obligations are offset among not only the parties to a bilateral contract but also their affiliates. In re SemCrude, L.P., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42477 (D. Del.

On May 5, 2009, Judge James Peck, the Bankruptcy Judge in the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy cases, held that the safe harbor provisions of the Bankruptcy Code do not override the mutuality requirements for setoff under section 553(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. As a consequence, the Bankruptcy Court prohibited Swedbank, a non-debtor counter party to a swap agreement, from setting off pre-petition claims against Lehman against funds collected for Lehman’s account postpetition. See In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc., Bankr. Case No. 08-13555 (JMP) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.

Introduction

Several recent bankruptcy decisions rendered in the Third Circuit address whether the disclosure requirements of Rule 2019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure apply to informal or “ad hoc” committees.1 Although these courts base their reasoning on the “plain meaning” of Rule 2019, their ultimate holdings are inconsistent and have generated renewed interest in this topic among lenders and the investing community. This article provides a brief summary of these recent decisions and examines their inconsistencies.

A creditor’s ability to vote on a plan of reorganization is one of its most fundamental rights in a chapter 11 bankruptcy. For strategic investors in distressed debt, the power to vote—and potentially control a voting class (or obtain a blocking position in that class)— can be a critical tool in maximizing value and return on investment. Investors should be aware, however, that a recent decision by Judge Robert E.

Introduction

Despite the prevalence of first-lien/secondlien structures in the loan market over the course of the recently-ended leveraged transaction cycle, fully-litigated cases interpreting the provisions of first-lien/second-lien intercreditor agreements remain something of a rarity. As a result, cases providing guidance on the extent to which customary waivers included in such intercreditor agreements would be enforced are always welcomed by finance practitioners. It comes as no surprise then, that the decision of Judge Peck of the U.S.

If an administration order is made and a pending winding-up petition is subsequently dismissed, the costs of that petition are payable as an expense of the administration.1

In our September 2009 Pensions update we reported on proposals to make changes to the employer debt regime aimed at assisting corporate restructurings. The final regulations have now been published and come into force on 6 April 2010. Under these provisions, where there is a corporate restructuring and one employer’s assets and pension liabilities are transferred to another, then as long as the prescribed steps (set out below) are followed, no statutory employer debt will arise. Employers relying on an easement will not be expected to seek clearance from the Pensions Regulator.

The Government has announced that it will shortly begin a consultation on important new measures designed to boost confidence in the ‘pre-pack’ administration procedure.

The PPF policy statement can be found here

Following its November 2009 consultation, the PPF has published a statement confirming its policy on measuring insolvency risk for the 2011/12 levy. Schemes and employers should act quickly before the 30 and 31 March 2010 deadlines.

The policy statement confirms that for the 2011/12 levy year, the PPF will adopt new policies, including: