The UK generally distinguishes between “loan relationship” debts (e.g. loan receivables) and other debts (e.g. trading debt in respect of outstanding consideration for the sale of goods or services). It is possible to turn a trading debt into a loan relationship by issue of a debenture in respect of it.
Tax treatment in the hands of the creditor
For debtors with limited liabilities, little surplus income and minimal gross assets, the new Debt Relief Order (DRO) is a further tool to consider in managing their debts. DROs, which came into force on 6 April 2009, are aimed at those who find they are unable to pay off their debts within a reasonable time but for whom other forms of debt relief, such as bankruptcy or Individual Voluntary Arrangements, are unavailable, or perhaps unaffordable.
What are the criteria for a DRO?
A DRO can be applied for where the debtor:
On 23 March 2009, the Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR) published a report on the market impact of the Lehman Brothers default. The report began with a brief discussion of the causes of the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. It then set out some of the regulatory and industry responses to the challenges in the securities field including:
In Sea Emerald SA v Prominvestbank - Joint Stockpoint Commercial Industrial & Investment Bank - Lawtel 19.8.08 the Commercial Court gave a reminder of the importance of ensuring that the person signing a guarantee upon which you may seek to rely has authority to do so.
This memorandum provides an overview of the practical issues facing a sub-participant under a Loan Market Association ("LMA") English-law governed sub-participation agreement as the creditworthiness of grantor deteriorates.
Re Cheyne Finance PLC
The UK courts recently interpreted the definition of insolvency in a way which can lead to an insolvency default being triggered earlier than before.
The U.S. Supreme Court issued two rulings in 2016 involving issues of bankruptcy law.
Virtually all public indentures contain provisions allowing the issuer to cure ambiguities and make other technical changes to the debt documentation without debtholder consent. When the purported ambiguities have substantive consequences, however, issuers may not be able to get away with an amendment that lacks debtholder approval. InGSO Coastline Credit Partners L.P. v. Global A&T Electronics Ltd. (NY App. Div. 1st Dept. May 3, 2016), a New York lower court bought into a “cure of ambiguity” argument and on that basis granted a motion to dismiss.
Market participants involved in distressed exchange offers have become accustomed to grappling with the implications of Trust Indenture Act Section 316(b) in the context of potential exit consents, i.e., are the contemplated amendments to the indenture governing the securities subject to the exchange significant enough to impair or affect the right of a holder to receive payment of principal and interest on or after the due dates of the relevant note?
Until the recent U. S. Supreme Court’s decision in Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz, __ U.S. __, 136 S.Ct. 1581, 194 L.Ed.2d 655, 84 U.S. L.W. 4270 (2016), there was disagreement in the circuit courts regarding whether a debtor in bankruptcy could be denied a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) where the evidence of wrongdoing proved the debtor committed actual fraud, but there was no evidence that the debtor made a misrepresentation to the creditor seeking to bar the discharge.