Weil Summer Associate David Rybak contributed to this post

2018 has been described as “the year of the CVA”, especially in the retail and casual dining sectors. Although company voluntary arrangements can be a useful tool to compromise portfolios of leasehold obligations, there are certain situations where a CVA may be unsuitable.

1. When a full operational and/or financial restructuring is required

In a recent decision, the Fifth Circuit narrowly held that federal law does not prevent a bona fide shareholder from exercising its voting right in the company’s charter to prevent the filing by the company of a bankruptcy petition merely because it is also an unsecured creditor. In re Franchise Servs. of N. Am., Inc., 891 F.3d 198, 203 (5th Cir. 2018).

In Momentive Performance Materials, the Second Circuit declined to dismiss as equitably moot the appeals of certain noteholders.

Following the liquidation of BHS Ltd, the High Court was asked to consider whether a landlord could claim full rent as an administration expense following termination of the CVA.

Background

Wright and another (Liquidators of SHB Realisations Ltd) v The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd concerned three principal insolvency processes applicable to companies under the Insolvency Act 1986:

The Court of Appeal has held that refusal of consent for both good and bad reasons will not automatically render that refusal unreasonable.

Background

Most commercial leases require tenants to obtain the consent of their landlord prior to assigning their lease. If so, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 (the Act) applies to say that if the tenant serves a valid application for consent, the landlord will be subject to the following duties:

Last week, in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc.1 the Supreme Court settled a split in the circuit courts, unanimously holding that the safe harbor provision created by 11 U.S.C. § 546(e), 11 U.S.C.

It’s been an interesting couple of weeks for bankruptcy at the United States Supreme Court with two bankruptcy-related decisions released in back-to-back weeks. Last week, the Supreme Court issued an important decision delineating the scope of section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code (discussed here [1] for those who missed it).

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court, in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., Case No. 16-784, ruled that the “securities safe harbor” under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532, does not shield transferees from liability simply because a particular transaction was routed through a financial intermediary—so-called “conduit transactions.”

The Pension Protection Fund (PPF) published new forms of contingent asset agreements in January along with new contingent asset guidance. It follows its publication of a final determination and levy policy statement in December for the levy year 2018/29.

Background