Summary

The much anticipated judgement of Mr Justice Snowden in relation to a restructuring plan proposal (the “Plans”) made by Virgin Active Holdings Limited, Virgin Active Limited and Virgin Active Health Clubs Limited (the “Plan Companies”) was handed down on 12 May 2021.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas recently clarified the administrative expense standard applicable to indenture trustees by holding that they can recover fees and expenses as administrative expenses only when they make a “substantial contribution.” This standard requires a greater showing than “benefit to the estate,” which is the general administrative expense standard. In re Sanchez Energy Corp., No. 19-34508 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. May 3, 2021).

Background

On Monday, the High Court handed down its decision in (1) Lazari Properties 2 Limited, (2) The Trafford Centre Limited, (3) LS Bracknell Limited and 10 Others and (4) Fort Kinnaird Nominee Limited and 20 Others v (1) New Look Retailers Limited, (2) Daniel Francis Butters and (3) Robert Scott Fishman [2021] EWHC 1209 (Ch) considering the various grounds of challenge raised by the applicants in relation to the New Look CVA. Mr Justice Zacaroli rejected each of the grounds of challenge leaving the New Look CVA intact.

Turns out, it depends on who you ask. Judge Bernstein said no. Recently, Judge Glenn said yes, but only for causes of action that resemble actual fraudulent transfers. It is unusual for the bankruptcy judges in Manhattan to disagree with each other, so let’s take a look at the issue.

Background

The Hungarian government has recently introduced a new restructuring tool with the aim of supporting companies suffering from financial difficulties due to COVID-19.

Financially distressed companies will receive an automatic stay while the company puts together a reorganisation plan, which will be supervised by a court and evaluated by a court-appointed expert.

In a first, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in the Arcapita Bank case had to decide whether Shari’a compliant investment agreements, providing for Murabaha and Wakala transactions, qualify for the safe harbor protections provided in the bankruptcy code for securities contracts, forwards and swaps. The court held that they do not. Since the opinion runs about 100 pages long, we attempt to distill some very basic facts concerning Shari’a compliant transactions and point to important holdings made by the court.

Shari’a Compliant Transactions

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill was published on 20 May 2020 and went through an accelerated parliamentary process, receiving Royal Assent on 25 June 2020 (with the provisions coming into force on 26 June 2020).

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“CIGA”) introduces a mixture of permanent and temporary “debtor friendly” measures to restructuring and insolvency law in England and Wales and in Scotland, jurisdictions which have historically been viewed as being “creditor friendly”.

Despite the scale of the pandemic and resulting build-up of Covid related rent arrears, currently estimated at around £4.5bn, business restructuring has been relatively muted. This is partly explained by the moratorium on forfeiture and other restrictions on landlords’ remedies, combined with unprecedented government financial support for struggling businesses.

But rent arrears cannot be pushed down the track indefinitely. As restrictions are eased and focus turns to tackling this debt, business restructuring activity will no doubt intensify.

In a recent decision, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that a purported debt held by an entity with a near-majority membership interest in the Debtor was actually equity disguised as a loan.

Background

In a recent decision, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit closed the door on triangular setoffs, ruling that the mutuality requirement under Section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code must be strictly construed and requires that the debt and claim sought to be setoff must be between the same two parties. In re: Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., No. 20-1136 (3d. Cir. 2021).

Background