Preliminary Remarks
On March 1, 2012, the Act for the Further Facilitation of the Restructuring of Companies (ESUG) came into effect. The main aim of the ESUG is to improve the prospects of an early and successful restructuring of distressed companies, to involve creditors in the selection process of the (preliminary) insolvency administrator and to improve the reliability and predictability of particular insolvency plan proceedings. The main changes of the ESUG to the current German insolvency law (InsO) comprise:
On 29 February 2012, the UK Supreme Court handed down its judgment concerning the treatment of client money in the long-running administration of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (“LBIE”).
Yes, on the facts in the Chapter 11 proceedings involving Borders, the insolvent bookseller.
Jefferies & Company, an investment bank, was retained by Borders to pursue reorganisation strategies, including a possible sale of the company’s assets as a going concern. The bank made considerable efforts in flogging the assets, which resulted in an offer from an interested party, but an actual sale of assets did not happen. Jefferies nevertheless claimed the liquidation fee under its agreement with Borders. The company’s creditors opposed this: no sale, no success fee.
In January and February of 2012, Justice Morawetz of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) released two decisions1 in which he authorized a debtor-in-possession (“DIP”) financing charge, an administration charge, and a directors and officers (“D&O”) charge ranking ahead of, among other claims, possible pension deemed trusts over the objection of the debtor companies’ unions and on notice to the members of the companies’ pension administration committees.
In the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Toronto-Dominion Bank and Her Majesty the Queen (2012 SCC 1), the Supreme Court succinctly agreed with the reasons of Justice Noël of the Federal Court of Appeal.
In the decision of Justice Morawetz of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) in In the Matter of Aero Inventory (UK) Limited and Aero Inventory PLC, the Court held that proceeds of a fraudulent preference action recovered by a trustee in bankruptcy under section 95 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) may be subject to the rights of secured creditors, to the extent secured creditors had rights in the collateral in question at the time of the impugned transaction.
In the recently released Judgment in Bank of Montreal v. Peri Formwork Systems Inc.1, the British Columbia Court of Appeal was called upon to decide whether a Monitor, under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”)2, or a Receiver, under the Builders Lien Act 3, could borrow monies to complete a development project in priority to claims of builder’s liens registered against the project.
Rayford Homes granted security to two lenders, its trustee shareholder and the Bank of Scotland (BoS). The parties entered into an intercreditor agreement (ICA) using the BoS standard form. In a schedule to that agreement was a definition of the term ‘BoS Priority’ over ‘BoS Debt’ up to a monetary limit. The amount was not filled in, nor was the term ‘BoS priority’ actually used in the ICA.
An English rugby club (an unincorporated association of its members) engaged the services of Barnes Webster & Sons (BWS), a construction company. The club’s treasurer signed the contract, which was witnessed by Davies, the club’s president. The club agreed to pay BWS a fixed price plus additional amounts for certain variations in the work, should they arise. The variations were required, but the club did not pay the £147,000 bill for them that BWS presented. BWS made a demand on Davies personally, which he moved to set aside.
The District Court in Manhattan seems to have put the nail in the coffin of triangular set-off in insolvency – that is, the ability of affiliates to set off their claims against an insolvent debtor: In re Lehman Brothers Inc. (SDNY, 4 October 2011).