In a recent case in the Court of Appeal, the Court ruled that information on a web page under the heading ‘about us’, that contained advice to users to obtain further information, was sufficient to absolve a trade organisation from its ‘guarantee’ responsibilities.

Customers who use members of the Swimming Pool and Allied Trades Association (SPATA) can claim redress in the event that a member becomes insolvent. However, the redress applies only where the membership is a full membership, not an associate membership.

When a company becomes insolvent (as many have in the last year or so) one effect is that its shares will normally have nil or negligible value and the holder of the shares will therefore normally show a ‘book loss’ on them. Such losses can be relieved against taxable gains in certain circumstances.

On September 15, 2009, the United States Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York ordered Metavante Corporation (“Metavante”) to make payments to Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (“LBSF”) under a prepetition interest rate swap agreement guaranteed by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI” and, together with LBSF, “Lehman”) after Metavante had suspended ordinary course settlement payments under the swap.1 Metavante claimed a contractual right to withhold payment under Section 2(a)(iii) of the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement as a result of Lehman’s bankruptcy.

Recent changes in Peruvian insolvency laws1 will now allow financial institutions and insurance company counterparties to close-out and net obligations under derivatives and repurchase agreements with Peruvian financial institutions or insurance companies which become subject to bankruptcy proceedings.

The recent ruling by the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Montana in the Chapter 11 case of In re Yellowstone Mountain Club LLC 1 (“Yellowstone”), which found that a senior secured lender had engaged in “overreaching and predatory lending practices”, suggests an application of lender liability theory from today’s perspective to a transaction that took place before the credit crisis.  

On May 14, 2009, Judge Allan Gropper of the US Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, approved a US$400 million DIP financing package in the US$27 billion General Growth Properties, Inc. (“GGP”) Chapter 11 case. Judge Gropper’s ruling also included approval of GGP’s proposal to use cash flow generated by shopping centers, structured by GGP as bankruptcy remote, special purpose entities, to fund GGP’s ongoing central operations while in bankruptcy.  

Due to the ongoing financial crisis and the economic downturn accompanied therewith, many German companies are or will be struggling with default and insolvency problems.

Debt-for-debt exchanges are not new, but are worth revisiting given the current economic climate. Furthermore, the recently enacted "Stimulus Act"1 provides some temporary relief to debtors from potentially harsh tax consequences of restructuring. The following discussion is relevant to issuers (also referred to as debtors) or holders (also referred to as creditors) of debt who are "US persons" (as defined in the US Internal Revenue Code).2

In order to illustrate some of the key US federal income tax consequences of a debt-for-debt exchange, consider the following example:

A “pre-packaged sale”, or “pre-pack”, is an arrangement under which the sale of all or part of a company’s business or assets is negotiated with a purchaser prior to the appointment of an administrator, and effected shortly (perhaps immediately) after appointment. The administrator effects the sale without the business being offered to the open market.

On February 11, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, addressing an apparent issue of first impression, ruled that a series of gas supply contracts might constitute “commodity forward agreements” and, in turn, “swap agreements,” exempt from the court-appointed trustee’s avoidance actions.1 The Court reversed and remanded the decision from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, which had held that the commodity supply contracts at issue were insufficiently tied to financial markets to be considered protected “commodity forwar