On 29 March 2017, Advocate General Mengozzi rendered his opinion to the EU Court of Justice in the landmark case regarding the Estro pre-packed bankruptcy.

Securing support from principal creditors makes all the difference between a chapter 11 restructuring that saves a troubled shipping company and one that sinks it.

When a shipping company's financial distress is extreme, it must work fast to preserve value and stem losses. The use of chapter 11 by shipping companies to coerce principal creditors to support an unfavorable restructuring where ownership refuses to share risk is costly, value destructive and generally fruitless.

In Russian insolvency procedures, it is quite common for third parties to try to exclude property from a debtor’s insolvent estate (konkursnaya massa) by claiming title to its real property in the absence of the registered title. These third parties may refer to the agreements that had been made prior to the commencement of the insolvency procedure as well as to the actual transfer of property to them.

A recent judgment of the German Federal Fiscal Court (FFC) will have significant impact on the restructuring tool kit afforded under German law. The FFC has found that the existing practice of permitting a tax liability arising from restructuring gains to be deferred and (eventually) waived violates fundamental principles of German law. The ruling has created uncertainty regarding the proper tax treatment of restructuring gains, which may have the effect of diminishing the prospect of success of a restructuring for a company in financial distress.

Op 20 december 2016 is het wetsvoorstel versterking positie curator door de Tweede Kamer aangenomen. Ook dit wetsvoorstel maakt onderdeel uit van het overkoepelende Wetgevingsprogramma Herijking Faillissementsrecht.

Het wetsvoorstel Wet continuïteit ondernemingen I maakt onderdeel uit van het overkoepelende Wetgevingsprogramma Herijking Faillissementsrecht waarin wijzigingen van het faillissementsrecht worden voorbereid.

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that both the debtor and any counterparty performing the legal act have knowledge of prejudice to creditors if, at the time of performing the legal act, the bankruptcy of the debtor and a shortfall in the bankruptcy estate is foreseeable. This judgment confirms the Supreme Court's decision of 22 December 2009 (ECLI:NL:HR:2009:BI8493).

Overview

In IBRC v Camden[1], the Court of Appeal held that a lender's express contractual power to market a loan was not subject to an implied limitation that doing so should not interfere with the borrower's ability to obtain the best price for the assets securing the loan. In so doing, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed the "cardinal rule" that an implied term must not contradict any express term of the agreement.

Background

On January 17, 2017, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in favor of the defendant in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Finance Corp.1, by vacating the decision of the District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "District Court") and finding that "Section 316(b) [of the Trust Indenture Act] prohibits only non-consensual amendments to an indenture’s core payment terms." This decision, combined with the recent ruling of the District Court in granting a motion to dismiss in Waxman v. Cliffs Natural Resources Inc.

Indentures governing high yield and investment grade notes typically provide for a make-whole or other premium to be paid if the issuer redeems the underlying notes prior to maturity. The premiums are intended to compensate the investor for the loss of the bargained-for stream of income over a fixed period of time.[1] Generally, though, under New York law, a make-whole or other premium is not payable upon acceleration of notes after an event of default absent specific indenture language to the contrary.