On October 20, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision which, among other things,[1] affirmed the lower courts’ holding that certain noteholders were not entitled to payment of a make-whole premium. The Second Circuit held that the make-whole premium only was due in the case of an optional redemption, and not in the case of an acceleration brought about by a bankruptcy filing.
On October 20, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an important decision regarding the manner in which interest must be calculated to satisfy the cramdown requirements in a chapter 11 case.[1] The Second Circuit sided with Momentive’s senior noteholders and found that “take back” paper issued pursuant to a chapter 11 plan should bear a market rate of interest when the market rate can be ascerta
On October 3, 2017, Bankruptcy Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued a decision holding that the Bankruptcy Court had constitutional authority to approve third-party releases in a final order confirming a plan of reorganization.
High Court holds that an Insolvency Exclusion applies in respect of a claim under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 (“1930 Act”) and awards summary judgment accordingly but declines to provide much-needed guidance on insurers’ liability in the case of claims partially settled by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (“FSCS”).
Case Alert ‐ [2017] EWHC 2597 (Comm)
Court confirms insurance policy exclusions are not construed narrowly/scope of an insolvency clause
The claimants brought a claim under the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 1930 against the professional indemnity insurers of their financial adviser. The adviser gave allegedly negligent investment advice in respect of bonds issued by a company which then went into liquidation (and so defaulted on payments due to the claimants).
Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council: Supreme Court again considers the nature of the relationship required to find a defendant vicariously liable
Written by Ashmi Mohan at Clasis Law
In its recent judgment of Kirusa Software Private Ltd. vs. Mobilox Innovations Private Ltd. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 6 of 2017, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal of India (“Appellate Tribunal”) has adjudicated upon the issue as to what does “dispute” and “existence of dispute” mean for the purpose of determination of a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”).
Globalisation has been described as an evolving set of consequences – some good, some bad and some unintended. In this regard, when companies go global, insolvency is perhaps the furthest thing from their minds. Yet, while business failure may be unintended, when a global company becomes insolvent or attempts debt restructuring, its insolvency representative e.g. liquidator or manager, will often have to deal with assets and creditors across the globe.
There have been a number of cases in recent years in which a party has sought to utilise the provisions of the CPR in order to obtain information on the opposing party's insurance arrangements, rather than waiting for that party to go insolvent in order to use the procedures provided by the Third Parties Rights Act 1930 or 2010. The recent case of Peel Port Shareholder Finance Co v Dornoch Ltd [2017] EWHC 876 (TCC) looks at this again in light of the discretion which Judges have under CPR31.16 for applications for pre-action disclosure and attempts to shut the door on such actions.
Reform des Insolvenzanfechtungsrechts
Das Gesetz zur Reform des Insolvenzanfechtungsrechts ist am 05.04.2017 in Kraft getreten. Im Fokus steht mit § 133 InsO die sogenannte Voranfechtung, die bislang in ihrer Ausprägung durch die Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofs in der Kritik stand. Im Ergebnis musste ein Gläubiger so bereits dann mit einer Insolvenzanfechtung durch den Insolvenzverwalter rechnen, wenn er seinem Schuldner eine Ratenzahlung gewährte.