On September 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. ("Lehman Holdings") filed for Chapter 11 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 08-13555). None of Lehman Holdings’ U.S. subsidiaries have filed for bankruptcy at this point. In addition, while Lehman Holdings has certain subsidiaries that are regulated entities (e.g., banks, insurance companies, etc.), none of those entities has yet been placed into any kind of insolvency proceeding by the applicable regulators.
The Ontario Court of Appeal (Court) recently affirmed the decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Nortel Networks Corporation (Re) (Nortel),[1] that the “interest stops” rule applies in proceedings under the
In a thorough appellate decision, a United States District Court in Florida has reversed the portion of a Bankruptcy Court’s determination that the repayment of over $400 million in loans was a fraudulent transfer. As discussed in more detail below, the decision is significant in the context of complex, multiple entity structures in determining (i) which affiliated entity (or unpaid creditors of that entity) can recover a transfer and (ii) what constitutes reasonably equivalent value for the transfer.
As noted in our recent insolvency law update, the Western Australian Court of Appeal has recently delivered its judgment (comprising over 1,000 pages) on one of Australia's longest running pieces of litigation: Westpac Banking Corporation v The Bell Group (in liq) [No 3].
The UK Supreme Court has recently considered the role of commercial common sense in interpreting a contract. Rainy Sky v Kookmin Bank concerned the interpretation of bonds issued by Kookmin Bank to guarantee the return of advance payments made by six purchasers under separate shipbuilding contracts. The shipbuilder had suffered an insolvency event and the purchasers were claiming refunds of the advance payments made to the shipbuilder under the bonds. The Bank contended that the bonds did not guarantee repayment of the advances on insolvency.
On January 17, 2017, in a long-awaited decision in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Finance Corp.,1 the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that Section 316 of the Trust Indenture Act ("TIA") does not prohibit an out of court restructuring of corporate bonds so long as an indenture's core payment terms are left intact.
A facilitation payment to encourage creditors to vote through the restructuring proposals of creditors’ debts has been held by the High Court not to be an illegal bribe. The court had regard to the fact that the offer of payment was made openly to all relevant creditors, none of whom were prevented from voting on the proposal. As such, where a creditor consented and received the facilitation payment, this was not contrary to the pari passu principle.
The facts
Introduction
The signs for the leveraged finance market in 2011 are mixed. Questions remain as to whether this year will see a fresh spate of restructurings and/or continued growth in primary issuance. Whilst data compiled by Fitch Ratings has shown that European PE backed company default rates slowed in 2010 (and premier league spending during the January transfer window topped £225 million compared with £30 million last year), the primary leveraged finance market has started slowly this year.
The recent bankruptcy filings by infrastructure companies Connector 2000 Association Inc., South Bay Expressway, L.P., California Transportation Ventures, Inc., and the Las Vegas Monorail Company have tested the structures utilized to implement public-private partnerships (P3s) in the United States in several respects. It is still too early to draw definitive conclusions about the impact of these proceedings on P3 structures going forward, but initial rulings in two of the cases are already focusing the minds of project participants on threshold structuring considerations.