The war in Ukraine is now in its fourth month with no visible end in sight to the hostilities and little prospect that the disruptive global economic impacts of the war will dissipate anytime soon. On the contrary, a new $40 billion weapons and aid package to Ukraine by the United States, coupled with 20 other nations pledging further security assistance for Ukraine, and Sweden and Finland applying to join NATO have further ratcheted up tensions between Russia and the Western Alliance nations.
For a creditor to initiate a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceeding (CIRP) against a debtor, the debt owed to them should be “Financial Debt” under Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016.
On June 7, 2022, Congress passed (in a 392-21 vote) the “Bankruptcy Threshold Adjustment and technical Corrections Act,” which raises the debt limit back to $7.5 million for businesses electing treatment under the Small Business Reorganization Act (“SBRA”), codified under Subchapter V of Chapter 11.
On June 1, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) released an invitation for comment on the DFPI’s regulatory approach to crypto asset-related financial products and services, as well as the potential regulation of such products and services under the California Consumer Financial Protection Law (CCFPL).
Unitranche financing began as a middle-market product, tracing its origins to the days of recovery from the global credit crisis. The credit markets re-opened with an explosion of available capital from traditional lenders, business development companies and other direct lenders. With an increasing supply of capital, leverage shifted to borrowers and private equity, allowing them to better dictate the terms and conditions of their loan facilities. With the greater prevalence of so-called “covenant-lite” loans, also came the exponential growth of the unitranche market.
The issue
A "no action" clause will appear in almost all English law-governed bond trust deeds.
A no action clause provides that a bondholder (or anyone entitled to payments on the bonds) cannot, initially, proceed directly against the issuer. Instead, the right to bring a cause of action resides with the trustee and it is only if the trustee, having become bound to take action, fails to do so within a reasonable time (with the failure continuing) that a bondholder can then itself proceed directly against the issuer.
This week's TGIF considers Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 6, in which the High Court overturned a finding by the Victorian Court of Appeal and confirmed that certificates of independent advice will not always protect lenders from an unconscionability claim.
In a recent case involving a default judgment to recover the sum of an outstanding loan, the Federal Court of Australia considered whether it had jurisdiction to set aside a bankruptcy notice issued against the guarantor of the loan and whether it had jurisdiction to extend the time for compliance with the bankruptcy notice.
Background
There are significant differences in the procedures available to lenders north and south of the border when it comes to enforcing fixed charges or standard securities over real/heritable property. In this blog, we will compare the process in England & Wales ("E&W") of appointing a fixed charge or "LPA" receiver with the Scottish calling-up procedure
England & Wales: LPA receivers