In a recent bench ruling, the Delaware bankruptcy court denied a motion to dismiss a chapter 11 bankruptcy filing, notwithstanding the fact that the filing contravened an express bankruptcy-filing blocking right, or “golden share,” held by certain preferred shareholders.

Key Takeaways

Speed read

The High Court has recently ruled that the agreement between the liquidator of a company and the parent of that company, which contemplated the transfer of all of the assets of the company to the parent gave rise to a trust arrangement on the facts of the case. As a consequence of that trust arrangement, lands which were inadvertently not transferred by the liquidator in the course of the liquidation were deemed not to have vested in the State when the company was dissolved, as would otherwise have been the case under the State Property Act, 1954.

Two courts recently answered “yes,” finding that environmental claims brought against reorganized debtors by government entities were discharged under confirmed Chapter 11 plans of reorganization. In In re Exide Techs., 613 B.R. 79 (D. Del. 2020), the District of Delaware held that pre-petition, non-compensatory air quality penalties imposed on a Chapter 11 debtor by a state regulator were subject to discharge in bankruptcy. And in In re Peabody Energy Corp.

I.Exide Techs.: the Bankruptcy Code’s Exceptions to Dischargeability

Yes, says the First Circuit. The First Circuit recently affirmed the District Court’s decision to deny a group of bondholders’ (the “Bondholders”) motion to have a trustee appointed for the Employees Retirement System of the Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (the “System”) under section 926 of the Bankruptcy Code. Section 926 of the Bankruptcy Code allows a court to appoint a trustee to pursue avoidance actions in Chapter 9 cases.

The COVID-19 global crisis has brought cross border insolvencies into focus as companies consider the challenges that may arise where assets are situated across a number of jurisdictions and where an insolvency event may occur. Drawing on our experience of cross border restructurings, and the issues that should be considered, we look at the key issues to consider when assessing if you should implement a restructuring where an Irish company is involved and which restructuring tool to avail of.

In the wake of the high profile collapse of the private equity firm Abraaj Capital, the Dubai International Financial Centre (“DIFC”) updated its insolvency regime with the introduction on June 13, 2019 of the new DIFC Insolvency Law (Law No.1 of 2019) (the “DIFC Insolvency Law”).

Disagreeing with the much-critiqued SDNY opinion in Enron, the SDNY bankruptcy court disallowed claims brought by secondary transferees because the original claimants allegedly received millions of dollars in fraudulent transfers and preferences from the Debtors that have not been repaid. Deepening the district spilt on the nature of Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Court held that the defense barring fraudulent transfer-tainted claims focuses on claims—not claimants—and cannot be “washed clean” by a subsequent transfer in the secondary market.

Directors are facing difficult decisions in the current climate but, while the impact of COVID-19 will continue to be felt, it does not follow that companies should be forced out of business. Our publication 'Saving viable businesses – a look at restructuring options in the current environment' serves as reminder of rescue procedures available under Irish law.

With the significant strain placed on market participants as a result of the combined impacts of the global COVID-19 pandemic, the oil price war and the ensuing liquidity and credit crunches, we expect that a number of enterprises in the United Arab Emirates ("UAE") will either be forced to carry out restructurings or otherwise undergo formal court-supervised insolvency processes.