In bankruptcy, cramdown is one of the biggest risks that a secured creditor faces. Through the power of cramdown, a debtor (or other plan proponent) can effectively restructure the claim of a secured creditor including to extend the maturity date, reduce the interest rate or alter the timing of repayment.

On 9 July 2013 a new law amending the Code of Commerce was enacted in Luxembourg (the “Law”). The Law introduces the right for a depositor to claim the recovery of intangible and non-fungible (i.e., identifiable and separable) goods from a bankrupt company. The parliamentary file aims clearly at including data from a bankrupt cloud computing service provider. The Law sets forth the different conditions to be fulfilled for the entitlement to claim intangible and non-fungible goods from a bankrupt company:

There are important issues and procedures to be considered when a foreign buyer seeks to purchase the assets of a U.S. entity that is distressed or subject to a U.S. insolvency proceeding and which is involved in business activities with a nexus to U.S.

Secured creditors need to be aware of recent bankruptcy rulings that affect their rights and interests. These rulings have tested the boundaries of key concepts affecting the ability to "cramdown" and involuntarily restructure a secured creditor’s rights and the valuation of collateral. Secured creditors must therefore be mindful of these developments and risks in guiding their negotiating and litigation strategy against a cramdown threat.

After a company has been declared bankrupt, the liquidator in charge of the bankrupt estate will process personal data on that bankrupt company’s behalf. The liquidator would then be considered a so-called data controller within the meaning of the Dutch Data Protection Act (DDPA).

A Dutch Court of Appeal recently upheld a lower court’s decision that a liquidator has the right to access data concerning the administration of a bankrupt company, the data of which are kept by a third party. It also held that this right, however, does not imply that the third party must provide the data in an orderly manner without being adequately compensated for it.

In its decision published on March 13, 2013 (dated February 21, 2013 – IX ZR 32/12), the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH or Bundesgerichtshof) made it clear that it will uphold its prevailing case law regarding two questions at hand even though the relevant legal provisions relating to equitable subordination have been moved from the corporate law regime to the insolvency law regime with the 2008 Act to Modernize the Law on Private Limited Companies and Combat Abuses (MoMiG or Gesetz zur Modernisierung des GmbH-Rechts und zur Bekämpfung von Mißbräuchen).

Recently, on the eve of closing a large mortgage loan for a regional mall intended for a single asset securitization, it was determined that there was an extremely remote risk that the mortgage might not be foreclosable due to a peculiarity of the improvements on the real property and local foreclosure practices.

Numerous public-private partnerships have been formed in recent years as a device for funding infrastructure projects such as ports, toll roads and other transportation projects, sewer systems and parking garages. State and local governments, which have been strapped for cash to spend on infrastructure projects, have granted private entities the right to operate various infrastructure projects in exchange for a significant up-front payment and/or periodic payments.

On January 17, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York decided that American Airlines (American) was not obligated to pay certain make-whole premiums set forth in some of its loan indentures at the time that American refinanced the applicable loans. A makewhole premium typically allows a lender to be compensated for having to reinvest in a lower interestrate environment when a borrower prepays its debt before the original maturity date.