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.

The government has published a consultation paper looking at ways to improve the framework surrounding companies in or approaching insolvency. The policy objective is to reduce the risk of major company failures and their impact on a wider range of stakeholders, including employees and company pension scheme beneficiaries.

In an article that first appeared in the Winter 2017 issue of RECOVERY, Matthew Tait, Partner at BDO, and Matt Hill, Senior Associate at Osborne Clarke, put together a blueprint for practitioners considering turnaround work.

Spanish Congress debates a legislative proposal (Propuesta de Ley) to reinforce the fight against late payment in response to the European Union demand for the correct implementation of the Insolvency Directive (2011/7/EU). This proposal would establish a penalty system against defaulting companies.

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.”

As has been widely reported, Carillion companies are being liquidated. This will affect their suppliers and the extended supply chain, including suppliers of contract workers and CIS subcontractors. There will be a lot of focus on debt and enforceability of things like pay when paid clauses (which, contrary to popular belief, are not always enforceable).