Introduction

1. Introduction

On 25 August 2010, the German government published a draft of an Act for the Restructuring and Orderly Liquidation of Credit Institutions, for the Establishment of Restructuring Fund for Credit Institutions and for the Extension of the Limitation Period of Corporate Law Management Liability (Restrukturierungsgesetz, the “German Restructuring Act”). It is anticipated that the German Restructuring Act will soon be introduced to the German parliament and be passed quickly.  

In light of recent reports released to the market, a lender in the leveraged loan market would be forgiven for indulging in some cautious optimism. New-issuance in July aggregated to €9.5 billion - a 13-month high. The year-to-date leveraged buy-out volume of €10 billion (38 deals) compares favourably with the €2.2 billion of volume (13 deals) for the same period in 2009. Against this backdrop, however, lenders should consider the recently released statistics from the Insolvency Service, and other economic data, which suggest that the economic outlook remains uncertain.

In the wake of recent bankruptcy filings by several prominent financial institutions, there’s a growing interest in changing standard credit documentation to address the risks of defaulting lenders and nonperforming administrative agents. Here are credit agreement provisions that financial institutions, acting as swingline lenders and letter of credit issuers, can require to protect themselves against the risk of a defaulting lender.

This article was published in slightly different format in the January 2008 issue of Credit Magazine.

It’s been a hard year for cryptocurrency. The values of most cryptocurrencies, including major coins such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, have continued to tumble. In fact, the price of one stablecoin, which is a form of cryptocurrency tied to another currency, commodity or financial instrument, de-pegged from its cryptocurrency token and entered into a downward spiral. Ultimately, the stablecoin and the crypto token it was pegged to collapsed, erasing $18 billion of value with it.

It is well known in the restructuring world that a debtor in bankruptcy can’t get a PPP loan. But what if you’re a debtor and decide a PPP loan could save your business? Will a court dismiss the case so you can seek a loan?

The subject matter jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts causes confusion and can be hard to understand. In a recent decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit clarified the meaning of the phrase “related to” in 28 U.S.C. §1334(b), the federal statute that governs the subject matter jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts.[1]

Can another vain attempt to mitigate a $1.5 billion mistake provide the occasion for a thorough review of the doctrine of earmarking? It did for Southern District Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn in the long tail on the General Motors bankruptcy case.

Fraudulent transfer law allows creditors and bankruptcy trustees, under certain circumstances, to sue transferees to recover funds received where a debtor’s transfers to the transferees actually or constructively defrauded its creditors. Under both the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act adopted by most states and the fraudulent transfer action created by federal bankruptcy law, a transferee of an alleged fraudulent transfer may assert a defense from such liability by establishing that it received the transfer in good faith and for reasonably equivalent value. See 11 U.S.C.