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.

INTRODUCTION 

In theory, when liquidating a succession, publication formalities must be observed so that the various creditors can present themselves and claim their due. This formality also gives the successors an overall view of the assets and liabilities of the succession before deciding whether or not to accept it.

On February 1, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steelworkers^[1]. The ruling:

After reserving judgment for more than a year, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) has released its decision in the matter of Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador v. AbitibiBowater Inc., et al [1].

In a recent decision in the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) Proceedings ofTimminco Ltd. et al.[1], Justice Morawetz of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice [Commercial List] observed that the disclaimer provisions of the CCAA apply equally in the context of a restructuring plan and a sales process.

In the recent decision in the CCAA Proceedings of Timminco Ltd. et al.[¹], the Ontario Court of Appeal has affirmed the CCAA Court’s jurisdiction to grant super-priority status to DIP financing charges (including over provincial deemed trusts) and, effectively, confirmed that a supervising CCAA Court has a broad discretion to do so.

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