Recently, the English High Court considered¹ how to interpret a material adverse change (“MAC”) clause which is a provision that routinely appears, in various forms, in loan agreements but on which there is limited case law. The court found in this case that there had been no MAC in the financial condition of a borrower.

On May 10, 2013, Judge Brendan Linehan Shannon of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware rejected an attempt to hold a private equity sponsor liable for its portfolio company’s alleged violations of the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the “WARN Act”) under the “single employer” theory of liability.

On April 22, 2013, Judge Kevin J. Carey of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware allowed a lender’s $23.7 million pre-petition make-whole claim, representing approximately 37% of the outstanding principal of the loan, in the Chapter 11 case of School Specialty, Inc. ¹ In a decision that will win cheers from the lending community, the court enforced the clear terms of the loan agreement over the objection of the Official Unsecured Creditors’ Committee, holding that the make-whole claim was enforceable under New York law.

BACKGROUND

On January 31, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware confirmed the debtors’ proposed plan of reorganization in In re Indianapolis Downs, LLC,¹ declining to “designate” or disallow the votes of several substantial creditors that had entered into a plan support or “lockup” agreement with the debtors after the bankruptcy filing. In a written decision,² the Bankruptcy Court provided important guidance concerning the permissibility of post-petition plan support agreements entered into before the court approves a disclosure statement.

On January 17, 2013, in a lengthy and closely reasoned opinion,¹ Judge Sean Lane of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York authorized American Airlines, Inc. (“American”) to repay $1.3 billion in debt without payment of a make-whole premium over the objection of U.S.

In a recent case before the Court of Appeal in ‘s-Hertogenbosch, the question was raised whether a liquidator should get access to data stored in a cloud, when the company, having a contractual relationship with the cloud provider, has gone into bankruptcy.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a Chapter 11 plan that provides for the sale of assets free and clear of a creditor’s lien must allow the creditor to “credit bid” at the sale. In upholding the Seventh Circuit’s decision,¹RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank resolved the circuit split on this issue between the Seventh Circuit, on the one hand, and the Third and Fifth Circuits, on the other.

BANKRUPTCY CODE

Nearly a year has passed since the Supreme Court held, in Stern v. Marshall,¹ that bankruptcy courts may not determine a potentially broad range of “private rights” disputes arising in bankruptcy proceedings. Lower courts have grappled with the practical implications of Stern, but it is not yet clear whether the decision will ultimately result in a significant curtailment of bankruptcy court power or prove narrower in application.

On March 1, 2012 a number of important changes to the insolvency regime in Germany came into force.¹ The main objective of the reforms is to facilitate the restructuring of companies and to enhance creditor’s involvement. The German government believes – in light of the recent financial crisis – that these reforms are necessary to facilitate complex restructurings.

NEW PRELIMINARY CREDITORS’ COMMITTEE