Slimming down a company, corporate and financial restructuring will be on minds of many managers and company owners in the coming months.
In practice, when deciding to wind down a company, often a decision needs to be made whether to trigger a regular wind-down (likvidacija), a fast-track wind-down (prenehanje družbe po skrajšanem postopku) or a bankruptcy proceeding (stečaj). The main goal usually is to close down the company with less cost and no liability for the shareholder or the management.
1. What to address first
The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s holding that the contemporaneous exchange for new value defense to a preference action under § 547(c) applied to a creditor bank that released its liens for less than full payment.
In so ruling, the Eighth Circuit BAP held that the bankruptcy trustee could not recover two of the three payments that the debtor made to the bank during the 90-day pre-petition preference period.
All insolvency proceedings (bankruptcy, and compulsory settlement) and court-sponsored financial restructurings (preventivna prestrukturiranja) in Slovenia are on hold until the recall of the COVID-19 epidemic (proceedings are currently expected to be on hold until 1 July 2020) (the "Recall"). During this time courts will not conduct the above-mentioned proceedings and no procedural and material deadlines will run.
Barely any region, sector or business remains unaffected by the exponentially growing pandemic. Stock market values, and thus also valuations for private companies, are plummeting due to the existing uncertainties.
Against this background, the question arises of how to deal with signed share or asset purchase agreements, if closing is still imminent. From the buyer's point of view, a valuation from the time before the COVID 19 crisis may now appear very expensive. The pandemic may trigger not only contractual provisions but also various legal remedies.
This week the Slovenian Government sent a new law - the first big anti-corona law package - the Intervention Measures to Mitigate the Effects of the coronavirus (COVID-19) Infectious Disease Epidemic on Citizens and the Economy Act into the legislative procedure.
On Monday, 16th March 2020, the Federal Act on provisional measures to prevent the dissemination of COVID-19 (COVID-19-Measures Act) came into effect in Austria.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently rejected a loan servicer’s appeal from a Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s ruling to remand to the lower bankruptcy court a punitive damages award for alleged discharge violations.
In so ruling, the Court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction regarding the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s ruling as to the punitive damages award, but affirmed the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s denial of the debtors’ motion for appellate attorney’s fees.
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently held that a debtor alleged a plausible claim against a mortgage loan servicer under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) based on the servicer’s proof of claim filed after obtaining a foreclosure judgment.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a consumer’s Truth in Lending Act (TILA) claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the claim was barred by the jurisdiction-stripping provision of the federal Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA).
A copy of the opinion in Shaw v. Bank of America is available at: Link to Opinion.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently reversed the denial of a lender’s motion to compel arbitration in an adversary bankruptcy proceeding for allegedly violating the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA), holding that — despite conflicting clauses in two different relevant agreements — the parties had entered into a valid arbitration agreement that delegated the threshold issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator.