In our Distressed Investor Alert dated December 23, 2009, we wrote that Bankruptcy Rule 2019, an often ignored procedural rule in U.S. bankruptcies, had returned to the public eye in light of the controversial revisions to Rule 2019 (“Revised Rule 2019”)1 proposed by the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States (the "Rules Committee").

Scenario:

The European Commission has published a report by external consultants (Oxera), Should aid be granted to firms in difficulty, a study on counterfactual scenarios to restructuring state aid? It is intended to inform the Commission of the consequences for intended recipients and their relevant industries if aid is not given, including whether the aid will, in fact, save jobs and economic activity.

Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”) and its affiliate and subsidiary debtors (collectively, “Lehman”) filed their proposed chapter 11 plan of reorganization in their jointly administered chapter 11 proceedings on Monday, March 15, 2010 (Docket No. 7572). Monday was the last day for Lehman to file a plan pursuant to section 1121(d) of the Bankruptcy Code in order for Lehman to maintain the exclusive right to file and obtain confirmation of a plan.¹

The Dáil Public Accounts Committee has issued a report which primarily examined the loss of "Fiduciary" taxes (such as PRSI and PAYE) arising from company insolvency. The Committee concluded that there is a need in Ireland to introduce further measures to reduce the amount of Fiduciary taxes that are lost due to the irresponsible behaviour of directors. There is a need, according to the report, for the introduction of a deterrent which will make directors aware of the negative consequences which could arise for them if they wilfully evade paying the company taxes that are due.

Bankruptcy Rule 2019, an often ignored procedural rule in U.S. bankruptcies, has returned to the public eye with a vengeance in light of a recent ruling by the influential Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware¹ and controversial pending amendments to Rule 2019 proposed by the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States (the “Rules Committee”). The amendments will be the subject of a public hearing held in New York City on February 5, 2010.²

Last week the Supreme Court overturned Mr Justice McGovern's recent decision in the Linen Supply of Ireland examinership that the current legislation does not permit the repudiation of leases in an examinership. The case has now been remitted back to the High Court to consider whether, in the specific case before it, the leases ought to be repudiated in order for a scheme of arrangement to be formulated.

Courts are now being asked to examine transactions which were completed during the recent exuberant period. Despite the fact that the transactions in question may have been market standard at the time, because those transactions are being scrutinized during an unprecedented economic crisis, it appears that a disproportionate amount of finger pointing – and economic loss – is being directed at secured creditors. The result is a seeming erosion of secured creditors’ rights for the benefit of unsecured creditors.

Recent attempts by the Zoe Group to seek court protection have raised the profile of examinerships. The main legal test to enter the process is: does the company have a reasonable prospect of survival. But what are the key ingredients for a successful examinership?

Credit agreements typically provide that any amendment permitting the release of “all or substantially all” of the collateral requires the unanimous consent of the lenders. Many market participants expect that this provision provides protection against the agent and other lenders from consenting to the sale of the collateral and releasing the corresponding liens without the consent of all lenders.