The landlord argued that the force majeure clause did not apply at all for three primary reasons. The Bankruptcy Court rejected each of the landlord’s arguments.

Last week the UK government introduced the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill in Parliament.

The main objective of the Bill is to provide businesses with the flexibility and space needed to continue to trade during this difficult time caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. That said, the provisions around the new moratorium and the new restructuring plan proposal have been under consideration for a few years.

The Bill’s measures can be split into three categories:

In In re Palladino, 942 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2019), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit addressed whether a debtor receives “reasonably equivalent value” in exchange for paying his adult child’s college tuition. The Palladino court answered this question in the negative, thereby contributing to the growing circuit split regarding the avoidability of debtors’ college tuition payments for their adult children as constructively fraudulent transfers.

Background

Wrongful Trading

On 14 May 2020, the UK Government extended the temporary suspension of wrongful trading liability until 30 June 2020.

Le 8 mai 2020, suite à une décision unanime rendue séance tenante le 23 janvier 2020, la Cour suprême du Canada (la « Cour suprême ») a publié ses motifs dans le cadre des procédures d’insolvabilité de Bluberi Gaming Technologies Inc., désormais 9354‑9186 Québec inc., et al.

On May 8, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada (Supreme Court) issued its reasons in the restructuring proceedings of Bluberi Gaming Technologies Inc., now 9354‑9186 Québec Inc., et al.

Due to the current economic downturn, many corporations (Borrowers) may find themselves in financial difficulty and need to refinance their existing debt obligations with creditors (Lenders). Such Borrowers may be able to reduce their financing costs through the issuance of “distress preferred shares” (DPS). This method of refinancing generally does not adversely affect the Lenders, as they can receive equal or better after-tax returns on their investments without jeopardizing their security and priority.

Parts I and II in this series discussed certain of the statutory predicates of credit bidding and some considerations for structuring such a bid. Here in Part III, we will address some additional issues that a lender must take into account when deciding to credit bid its debt and some documentary considerations. As its name implies, the predominant form of consideration in a credit bid is often the lender’s debt. Lenders, however, cannot ignore another component of consideration often needed to consummate a transaction, cash.

In Part I of this three part series we noted the likelihood that credit bidding will be more prevalent in today’s unpredictable economic environment and discussed some of the statutory backdrop. Here, in Part II, we will discuss certain mechanics that are associated with making, and later consummating, a credit bid.

For many secured lenders, the concept of credit bidding in bankruptcy is generally understood yet infrequently explored in practice. In today’s extremely uncertain economic environment, third-party alternatives may not present themselves as M&A activity and acquisition financing have slowed significantly with the spread of COVID-19. As a result, credit bidding could gain momentum as lenders look for self-help alternatives to maximize their recoveries.