On April 8, 2015, we distributed a Corporate Alert outlining two important decisions of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York and their potential effects on future debt exchange offers.1 Since then, the Education Management court has issued a final ruling on the following question, as stated by the court in its most recent decision: “does a debt restructuring violate Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act (the Act) when it does not modify any indenture term explicitly governing the right to receive interest or principal on
On 22 April 2015 the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the case of Jetivia SA and another v Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others [2015] UKSC 23, which was heard in October last year. In short it decided that: 1) defendant directors cannot raise illegality as a defence to a claim by a company where the directors themselves acted wrongfully; and 2) a claim in fraudulent trading under Section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Section 213)has extra-territorial effect.
Background
In SwissMarineCorporation Ltd v OW Supply & Trading[1], the High Court refused to grant an anti-suit injunction restraining Danish insolvency proceedings. This case provides a useful discussion of the circumstances in which the court are likely to grant an anti-suit injunction, and in particular where there are jurisdiction issues involving elements of both civil and insolvency proceedings.
Germany’s Frankfurt District Court recently dealt with the question of whether a debtor’s lawyers’ fees arising from restructuring advice prior to insolvency could be challenged and claimed back in insolvency. The court held in the first instance (07.05.2015, Az. 2-32 O 102/13) that the lawyers of an insolvent German company in the solar industry had to repay €4.5 million after the out-of-court restructuring failed.
In the recent case of HMRC v Munir & Others[1], HMRC successfully applied to the Court for committal of three company officers for contempt of court where an order appointing a provisional liquidator was knowingly breached.
Background
ADVISORY | DISPUTES | TRANSACTIONS Financial Litigation roundup Spring 2015 Welcome to the latest edition of our Financial Litigation roundup. In this edition, we consider recent judgments and ongoing cases from the banking and financial world in the UK and Asia, as well as regulatory developments across those jurisdictions. English judgments SPL Private Finance (PF1) IC Limited and others v Arch Financial Products LLP and others; SPL Private Finance (PF2) IC Ltd and other v Robin Farrell. more> McWilliam v Norton Finance (UK) Ltd (in liquidation).
Removal of requirement for sanction
Previously under section 165 IA 86, liquidators in a voluntary winding up would have to seek sanction of the company (in members’ voluntary liquidation) or of the court or liquidation committee (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) in order to exercise their powers to pay debts, compromise claims etc. SBEEA removes this requirement so that liquidators can exercise those powers freely. This will aid expeditious winding up of companies. Equivalent provisions have also been put into place for trustees in bankruptcy.
The Delaware Court of Chancery recently issued an opinion in Quadrant Structured Products Company1that addresses creditors’ rights to bring derivative lawsuits against directors and officers of a corporation. The Court held that Delaware law does not impose a continuous insolvency requirement and that the “traditional balance sheet test” is the appropriate test for determining solvency. The opinion also provides a roadmap on the current landscape under Delaware law for analyzing breach of fiduciary duty claims.
The senior secured note holders recently lost their appeal of the bankruptcy court's decision confirming Momentive's chapter 11 plan.1
Originally published in ABF Journal on May 20, 2015
Determining secured lender cramdown interest rates in Chapter 11 cases has been widely debated, and recent court rulings have proven to be inconclusive. Kaye Scholer Attorneys Madlyn Gleich Primoff and Holly Martin discuss the controversial issue, highlighting the ABI Commission’s recent recommendations that endorse a more favorable approach for secured lenders.