A recent decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas in In re Walker County Hospital Corporation serves as an important reminder to clients that are purchasing or renewing directors and officers (“D&O”) insurance coverage that the “Insured versus Insured” exclusion must contain the broadest possible exceptions for claims brought against directors and officers following a bankruptcy filing. Without the specific policy language, current and former directors and officers may be exposed to personal liability.
One common denominator links nearly all stressed businesses: tight liquidity. After the liquidity hole is identified and sized, the discussion inevitably turns to the question of who will fund the necessary capital to extend the liquidity runway. For a PE-backed business where there is a credible path to recovery, a sponsor, due to its existing equity stake, is often willing to inject additional capital into an underperforming portfolio company.
In a much-anticipated decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently held that unsecured noteholders’ claims against a debtor for certain “Applicable Premiums” were the “economic equivalent” to unmatured interest and, therefore, not recoverable under section 502(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.
With the increase in global trade and business, often involving complex corporate structures in multiple jurisdictions, we expect to see a significant increase in cross-border insolvency and restructuring matters in coming years. This is especially the case with rapid advancements in technology and digital change driving “borderless” transactions and investments in every industry.
A March 8 2016 decision of the influential Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York has attracted attention from – and caused concern for – owners of pipelines and other midstream assets, as well as lenders to midstream and upstream lenders across the United States.
Most due diligence processes in a business acquisition context require a review of material contracts and, in particular, a review of any restrictions on assignment of those contracts.
When a business enters into a long term commercial contract with a customer, the identity of that particular counterparty may influence the terms of the contract. A party deemed more favourable may obtain a better price or better terms. Unless restricted by enforceable anti-assignment provisions, these favourable contracts can be very valuable in a traditional M&A context.
Of general interest is the appeal in the case of Horton v Henry, on which we reported in our January 2015 update. In Horton, the High Court declined to follow a previous ruling, and decided that a bankrupt could not be compelled to access his pension savings to pay off creditors.