The First Circuit Court of Appeals has recently held in Sun Capital Partners III, LP v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund, No. 12-2312 (July 24, 2013), a case of first impression at the Circuit Court level, that a private equity fund that exercises sufficient control over a portfolio company may be considered a “trade or business” for purposes of Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

The UK's bank regulatory and insolvency law structures were unprepared for the global financial crisis. As a result, the UK government's response to intense bank stress in the immediate aftermath of the crunch led to a number of somewhat unsatisfactory ad hoc solutions ranging from nationalisations to encouraging otherwise healthy institutions to take over weaker banks. Generally speaking, there was a criticism, fairly made perhaps, that profits were privatised and losses had been socialised.

Fundamental restructuring of insolvent companies—in any sector— is a fight for survival.

Given the global nature of the industry, it is perhaps no surprise that shipping companies and their advisors have sought appropriate court protection to alleviate creditor pressure and a possible break-up of the business where a consensual restructuring is not possible.

Every lender sincerely hopes that, even when its borrower is flat on the floor and seems down for the proverbial count, the borrower will still find the wherewithal to repay it. A lender often starts counting the days after it is repaid until the 90-day preference period (11 U.S.C. §547) has passed. The lender generally breathes a sigh of relief on the 91st day, confident that if its borrower files for bankruptcy, the money paid to the lender is safe from being clawed back by the Bankruptcy Court.

The recently decided case of RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 566 U.S. ____ (2012), puts to rest a conflict among the Third, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits as to the right of secured creditors to credit bid at a proposed sale of their collateral under a plan of reorganization that the secured creditor opposes. The practice of credit bidding is codified in the Bankruptcy Code at 11 U.S.C. §363(k) and is the right of a secured creditor to bid the amount of its secured debt at a debtor’s sale of the creditor’s collateral in bankruptcy.

PwC, the administrators in the Lehman Brothers administration in the UK, have made several applications to the Court seeking directions on their approach to the distribution of clients’ money and assets. On 29 February 2012 the Supreme Court gave judgment on issues that are central to the interpretation and application of the rules for the protection of client money made by the Financial Services Authority. The issues raised are ones that have divided judicial opinion.

German Insolvency Law – a Leap Forward

Creditors have often complained that German insolvency law does not give them sufficient influence in insolvency proceedings. On 1 March 2012 new amendments to the German bankruptcy code came into force which go some way towards ameliorating this concern and make a host of changes which should improve German insolvency law to facilitate an insolvency culture which facilitates reorganisation rather than liquidation of assets.  

Clarification on the jurisdiction of the English courts to sanction schemes of arrangement for overseas companies

Providing further evidence that schemes of arrangement (“schemes”) are an increasingly useful tool in the restructuring of overseas companies, on 20 January 2012, the High Court sanctioned a scheme proposed by PrimaCom Holding GmbH (“PrimaCom”), a German incorporated company, with its centre of main interests (or “COMI”) in Germany and whose affected creditors were domiciled outside the UK.

On September 13, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”) approved a final rule (the “Final Rules”) to be issued jointly by the FDIC and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Board”) intended to implement section 165(d) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) which requires each non-bank financial company supervised by the Board and each bank holding company with assets of US$50 billion or more (each, a “Covered Company”)1 to report periodically to the Board, the FDIC and the Financial Stability Oversig

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that the Massachusetts Predatory Home Loan Practices Act, Chapter 183C of the General Laws of Massachusetts, is preempted by the high cost home loan provisions of the federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) for federally chartered depository institutions. The July 27 ruling came in a case brought by Massachusetts residents who had jointly received a home mortgage loan from a national bank.