In a victory for minority noteholders opposing an out-of-court restructuring of their distressed issuer, New York's highest court ruled last week that a holder's right to receive or sue for payment on its notes survived an exercise of statutory remedies by the trustee, conducted at the direction of a noteholder majority, that would have cancelled the holder's notes without its consent and replaced them with equity securities.

1. Background and Overview

As described in our Client Alert "The new German business stabilization and restructuring regime ("German Scheme")" dated 12 October 2020, the German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection had presented a draft bill (the "Original Bill") to introduce a new business stabilization and restructuring framework - the new "German Scheme" - into German law.

The German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection has recently presented the longawaited draft bill to introduce a new pre-insolvency business stabilization and restructuring regime into German law.1 The availability of this ground-breaking new "German Scheme" will significantly change the German restructuring landscape and elevate it to an internationally competitive level.

On Monday 14th September 2020, Mrs Justice Falk issued her reasoned judgment, in respect of the application by Codere Finance 2 (UK) Limited (the "Company") to convene a single class of its creditors to consider and vote on a proposed scheme of arrangement under Part 26 of the Companies Act 2006 ( the "Scheme").

In a hearing spanning three days, the High Court of England and Wales addressed multiple grounds of challenge from a dissenting noteholder but nonetheless granted the Company's request to convene a single meeting of its scheme creditors.

Background

1. Background: Temporary Modification of the German Insolvency Regime to avoid COVID-19-related Insolvencies in Germany expires on 30 September 2020

This article was originally published in Law360. 

July Bankruptcy and Restructuring Developments

On 26 June 2020, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (the “CIGA”) entered into force. We summarised the key terms of the proposed legislation in our previous client alert (link to previous alert). 

During this time of economic upheaval amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, many corporate borrowers are faced with the inability to service debt obligations, and creditors may seek to hold corporate officers and directors accountable as a result. In these uncertain times, it is wise to review the fiduciary duties of corporate directors and officers and the effects of financial distress on such duties.[1] The following Q&A provides guidance on this issue from a Delaware law perspective, as Delaware is the most commonly cited jurisdiction for corporate governance.

For months, landlords and tenants impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic have wondered whether force majeure clauses in leases would excuse a tenant's non-payment of rent. On June 3, 2020, a Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois offered us an early look into how courts might interpret such clauses in the midst of the current crisis. In In re Hitz Restaurant Group, No. 20-B05012, 2020 WL 2924523 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. June 3, 2020), the Bankruptcy Court ruled that Executive Order 2020-7, the Stay-at-Home Order (the "Order") enacted by Illinois Governor, J.B.