Weil Summer Associate David Rybak contributed to this post
2018 has been described as “the year of the CVA”, especially in the retail and casual dining sectors. Although company voluntary arrangements can be a useful tool to compromise portfolios of leasehold obligations, there are certain situations where a CVA may be unsuitable.
1. When a full operational and/or financial restructuring is required
In a recent decision, the Fifth Circuit narrowly held that federal law does not prevent a bona fide shareholder from exercising its voting right in the company’s charter to prevent the filing by the company of a bankruptcy petition merely because it is also an unsecured creditor. In re Franchise Servs. of N. Am., Inc., 891 F.3d 198, 203 (5th Cir. 2018).
In Momentive Performance Materials, the Second Circuit declined to dismiss as equitably moot the appeals of certain noteholders.
In the recent decision in LBI EHF v. Raiffeisen Bank International AG [2018] EWCA Civ 719, the Court of Appeal has considered the close-out valuation provisions for "repo" trades entered into under a Global Master Repurchase Agreement (2000 edition). The court refused to limit the wide discretion given to a non-defaulting party to determine fair market value under the GMRA.
The factual background
Introduction
Under reforms commencing in July 2018, Australia will have new insolvency laws which will limit the exercise of contract rights to terminate for insolvency. Partners David McIntosh and Robyn Chatwood, explain how these reforms will impact the retail sector in Australia, including suppliers of goods and services and lenders.
Background
Last week, in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc.1 the Supreme Court settled a split in the circuit courts, unanimously holding that the safe harbor provision created by 11 U.S.C. § 546(e), 11 U.S.C.
It’s been an interesting couple of weeks for bankruptcy at the United States Supreme Court with two bankruptcy-related decisions released in back-to-back weeks. Last week, the Supreme Court issued an important decision delineating the scope of section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code (discussed here [1] for those who missed it).
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court, in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., Case No. 16-784, ruled that the “securities safe harbor” under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532, does not shield transferees from liability simply because a particular transaction was routed through a financial intermediary—so-called “conduit transactions.”
In good news for liquidators, the Federal Court’s decision in Marsden (liquidator) v CVS Lane PV Pty Limited Re: Pentridge Village (in which Dentons acted for the liquidator) confirms that time will be extended for liquidators who are unable to bring voidable transaction proceedings within the relevant timeframe due to a lack of funding.
The case also has wider implications. It could be relied upon by liquidators to justify subsequent claims which could otherwise have been brought at an earlier stage if funding had been available.