In general, substantive consolidation allows for the assets and liabilities of affiliated debtor entities to be consolidated and disbursed as if the assets were held and the liabilities were owed by a single legal entity. Unlike joint administration, which promotes procedural convenience and efficiency without affecting the substantive rights of creditors, substantive consolidation can force creditors of a solvent debtor to share in the debtors’ aggregate asset pool in parity with creditors of less solvent debtors.

Introduction

The English High court has approved a scheme of arrangement for a company incorporated in Germany which had its centre of main interests in Germany, no establishment in the UK and no assets in the UK likely to be affected by the scheme.

This case is one of a number of recent cases where restructurings of foreign companies have been effected by English schemes of arrangement. The court set out its reasoning in this case in some detail in view of the possibility that the European Court of Justice would consider some of the relevant issues in a forthcoming appeal in another case.

On April 26, 2011, the Supreme Court approved a number of amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. In particular, the Supreme Court amended Bankruptcy Rule 2019 to clarify the disclosure required of certain parties in interest in a chapter 9 or 11 bankruptcy case.1 These amendments were drafted by a panel of bankruptcy judges and restructuring experts and are intended to resolve a split in decisions concerning the proper application of the current Bankruptcy Rule 2019.

On April 25, 2011, the Rhode Island Superior Court (Silverstein, J.) ruled in favor of the constitutionality of the Voluntary Restructuring of Solvent Insurers Act (the “Restructuring Act”), a state statute enacted in 2002 that allows Rhode Island domestic commercial insurers and reinsurers (including those that redomesticate to Rhode Island) to enter into a commutation plan for their run-off business.

Under the laws of the UK and Bermuda, solvent insurance companies that had ceased to write new policies have long been able to implement an orderly and expeditious run off of their businesses through court approved schemes of arrangement.

On February 22, 2011, Judge James M. Peck of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision declining to modify the September 20, 2008 Sale Order that approved the sale to Barclays PLC (“Barclays”) of assets collectively comprising the bulk of the North American investment banking and capital markets business of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”), Lehman Brothers Inc. (“LBI”) and certain of their affiliates (together “Lehman”).

The short answer to the title question is “no.” However, under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank” or the “Act”), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) has limited “back-up” authority to place into liquidation an insurance company that (i) meets certain criteria as respects the nature of its business and (ii) is essentially “too big to fail.” This liquidation proceeding would, however, still be under the relevant state insurance liquidation laws.1  

In BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited v Eurosail–UK 2007–3BL Plc and others, the Court of Appeal ruled on the interpretation of the so-called "balance-sheet" test of insolvency under section 123(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986. This is essentially that a company is deemed unable to pay its debts if the value of its assets is less than the amount of its liabilities, taking into account its contingent and prospective liabilities. This appears to be the first reported case on the interpretation of the balance-sheet test of insolvency.

In a second decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida involving secured lenders to bankrupt homebuilder TOUSA, Inc., on March 4, 2011, Judge Adalberto Jordan affirmed the dismissal of fraudulent conveyance claims brought against the lenders on a revolving credit facility. In dismissing those claims, the Bankruptcy Court had emphasized that, because the revolving credit agreement was entered into, and the liens securing it were pledged, well before the company's alleged insolvency, they were immune from fraudulent conveyance attack.