Singapore’s Ministry of Law has unveiled significant proposed changes aimed at revising Singapore’s restructuring and insolvency laws and developing Singapore into a regional debt restructuring hub.1
IN BRIEF
Draft legislation unveiled
On January 17, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rendered a much anticipated decision in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Corp., No. 15-2124-cv(L), 15-2141-cv(CON), reversing the Southern District of New York's holding that only a non-consensual amendment to an indenture's core payment terms violates Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act (TIA).
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently resolved a split within the circuit when it held that a bankruptcy court has the power to recharacterize debt as equity.
Singapore’s Ministry of Law has unveiled proposed amendments to the Singapore Companies Act to be made in 2017 to strengthen Singapore as an International Centre for Debt Restructuring (“the proposed amendments”). The Ministry of Law released the proposed amendments for public consultation from 21 October 2016 to 2 December 2016.
The acceptance of the Committee’s recommendation is a boost in Singapore’s bid to become a debt restructuring hub, and it is likely to be exciting to see how and when these recommendations will be implemented.
On 20 July 2016, Singapore’s Ministry of Law accepted the recommendations of the Committee to Strengthen Singapore as an International Centre for Debt Restructuring (the “Committee”).
Introduction
In Canada, there is more than one insolvency regime available to an insolvent company that wishes to restructure its debts and operations. However, the most commonly used regime for large companies ? and sometimes for smaller companies, because it is the most flexible ? is the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (CCAA). The most commonly used regime for smaller companies or less complicated restructurings is proposal proceedings under theBankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA).
CCAA
With two decisions (No. 1895/2018 and No. 1896/2018), both filed on 25 January 2018, the Court of Cassation reached opposite conclusions in the two different situations
The case
A ruling of the Court of Padua of 31 December 2016 is compared with few other known Court decisions regarding the extension of the effects of a debt restructuring agreement to dissenting financial creditors
The case
Two companies having an indebtedness mainly towards banks and leasing companies, jointly submitted to the Court a request for confirmation of a debt restructuring agreement providing for a two-year moratorium of payment of principal and a restructuring of interests.
The Italian Government further integrated the rules applicable to debt restructuring agreements, allowing the debtor to cram down the agreement also to dissenting minority lenders, in two different frameworks: a) stand-still agreements for a “temporary moratorium” pending negotiations, and b) the actual agreements for the rescheduling and restructuring of the outstanding debt.