Over the past several years, non-recourse receivables financing has been embraced by many major financial institutions and non-bank investors in the US market. With its (i) favorable regulatory treatment for regulated institutions, (ii) perceived positive risk/reward profile and (iii) adaptability to recent technological advancements such as distributed ledger technology (i.e., blockchain), non-recourse receivables financing likely will grow increasingly popular in the US market.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a secured creditor cannot be denied its right to “credit bid”—i.e., to offset the amount of its debt against the purchase price of assets, rather than bidding in cash—in sales of collateral undertaken in connection with plans of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. In so ruling, the Court resolved a widely publicized split of authority among the Circuit Courts of Appeal, and rejected the Third Circuit’s ruling in the Philadelphia Newspapers case.¹

Secured lenders are troubled at the recent news that a New York state court judge denied a preliminary injunction request filed in the Supreme Court of New York by a group of dissenting first-lien lenders, seeking to prevent a borrower, Serta Simmons, and certain first-lien consenting lenders from entering into a recapitalization transaction. In exchange for the purchase of the consenting lenders’ debt at a discount, the consenting lenders received new super-priority debt ranking ahead of the non-consenting lenders’ debt.

U.S. Bank N.A. v. Village at Lakeridge, LLC, No. 15-1509

On 11 May 2012, the Commission announced that it has approved a 2009 restructuring plan for ING, following a General Court judgment which had partially annulled the Commission’s previous clearance decision. Therefore, the Commission has essentially confirmed its earlier decision and has decided to appeal the General Court judgment. It has also opened an in-depth State aid investigation into the subsequent amendments to the restructuring plan made by the Dutch State and ING. The Commission believes that the complexity of the issues justifies an in-depth analysis.

On 18 March 2014, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) issued Circular No. 09/2014/TT-NHNN (Circular 09) to amend and supplement a number of articles in Circular No. 02/2013/TT-NHNN regulating the classification of debt, the establishment and levels of risk reserves, and the use of reserves for dealing with risks during the operation of credit institutions and foreign bank branches.

The two year transitional period under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (PPSA) ends on 31 January 2014.  After this date, any remaining transitional security interests (TSIs) that have not been registered on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR) will no longer have their pre-PPSA priority, which could result in a secured party losing priority to other secured creditors or losing its interest in the secured property altogether if the grantor becomes bankrupt (if an individual) or is placed into administration or liquidation (if a company).

Dispute is one of priority, not ownership.

The first judgment regarding a major Personal Property Securities Act ("PPSA") priority dispute between a bank with a perfected "General Security Agreement" and an equipment owner with an unperfected "PPS Lease" has been handed down.

The decision in Richard Albarran and Blair Alexander Pleash as receivers and managers of Maiden Civil (P&E) Pty Ltd & Ors v Queensland Excavation Services Pty Ltd & Ors  highlights three key issues for the insolvency industry:

Historically, shareholders and management have not been liable for the debts of the public companies they run or own in Ukraine.

The Western Australian Court of Appeal has today delivered its judgment in the appeal of Westpac Banking Corporation v The Bell Group Ltd (in Liq) [2012] WASCA 157 ( The Bell Appeal ).  The Court substantially rejected the appeal.  The decision has important implications for directors, financiers and bondholder investors. It is a salutary reminder for financiers of the consequences of "knowingly receiving" a benefit from a breach of directors' duties. 

Background