In the context of German restructuring, bridge loans (Überbrückungskredite) are loans that are granted to financially distressed companies until a restructuring plan is formulated in order to avoid the company’s insolvency. In most cases, such loans are granted for a limited timeframe. After the restructuring plan has been finalized, renegotiations are usually required, in particular between the company, the lender and the company’s other creditors.
In Re Crystallex, the Ontario Court of Appeal (“Court of Appeal”) unanimously upheld three orders of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (“OSCJ”) that (1) authorized bridge financing, (2) authorized interim financing
Debtor in Possession (“DIP”) financing is essentially new bridge financing that is provided to a corporation as it undergoes insolvency proceedings. The term exists because the corporation maintains possession of its assets during this process as opposed to having a bankruptcy trustee take possession. The concept derived from the United States of America where DIP financing is expressly provided for under c.11 of the Bankruptcy Code and allows a bankrupt corporation to incur new debt for the purposes of carrying on business operations.
Italian bankruptcy law — Royal Decree No. 267 of 16 March 1942 — (the Bankruptcy Law) underwent a substantial reform between 2005 and 20091, mainly aimed at introducing (i) a more efficient regulation of the pre-bankruptcy agreement procedure (concordato preventivo)2 and (ii) new pre-bankruptcy schemes of arrangements, in the form of the out-of-court debt restructuring plan (piano attestato di risanamento)3 and the debt restructuring agreement (accordo di ristrutturazione dei debiti)4.
On July 30, 2010 the Italian Parliament passed Law 122/20101 which, among others, improved the restructuring proceedings governed by the Italian Bankruptcy Law2 (“IBL”).
The improvements operate on two fronts of restructuring deals which had proven to be still unclear (and thus risky) despite the recent reform:
It is an age old problem for creditors who are faced with debtors who ask for more time to pay their debts. The Civil Procedural Rules (CPR) 14.9 and 14.10 allow for a debtor, following the admission of their debt, to request time to pay. It is open for a claimant to choose whether or not to accept a defendant’s proposals; if the claimant does not accept the defendant’s proposals, it is for the court to determine the time and rate of payment. The court’s discretion conferred by CPR 14.10 to extend time for payment has not, until now, been examined.
In a decision released on March 29, 2011, CDX Liquidating Trust v. Venrock Assocs., et al., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6390 (7th Cir. March 29, 2011), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, reversing the district court’s ruling, held that a director’s disclosure of a conflict, in and of itself, is insufficient to protect that director from liability for breach of fiduciary duty or disloyalty arising from that conflict.
When a person “pays” a debt with a fictitious check, someone other than the bad guy usually ends up losing. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed such a situation inWhite Family Cos., Inc., v. Slone (In re Dayton Title Agency, Inc.), Case Nos. 12-3265;3359, July 31, 2013. In Dayton Title, the accused bad guy was Krishan Chari. Chari operated a real estate business in which he bought and sold commercial properties.
Introduction