On 20 June 2016, Rio de Janeiro-based Oi SA, Brazil’s fourth-largest telecom company, filed the largest judicial reorganisation petition in Brazil’s history, days after debt restructuring talks with creditors collapsed. The filing of Oi and six subsidiaries lists 65.4 billion reais (USD19.26 billion) in debt. The company has also filed for Chapter 15 protection in the U.S. As from the date of filing the accrual of interests, penalties, monetary correction and late charges are suspended and will only become enforceable if the judicial reorganisation becomes a bankruptcy.
In 2016-0628741I7, CRA headquarters was asked by a CRA tax services office whether s. 143.4 would apply in respect of a debt-restructuring plan (the Plan) at a point in time before the unpaid interest owing by the taxpayer was actually settled (forgiven) under the Plan steps. CRA headquarters answered yes. The takeaway: this view can potentially result in income in the course of debt restructuring before the debt is actually settled. Here are the main points:
Does a potential administrator’s involvement in pre-administration contingency planning give rise to a conflict of interest, such that the potential administrator should be disqualified from accepting the formal appointment?
Korda, in the matter of Ten Network Holdings Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2017] FCA 914
On June 6, 2017, Australian-based mining equipment supplier Emeco Holdings emerged from chapter 15 proceedings in the Southern District of New York following an Australian court’s sanctioning of the company’s scheme of arrangement.
The scheme of arrangement was a component of an innovative, comprehensive restructuring that provided for a three-way merger of three large Australian mining service companies and a restructuring of A$680 million of debt through a debt-for-equity swap, rights offering, and full refinancing.
The INSOL International Channel Islands Seminar took place on 13 September 2017 in Guernsey, where tensions rose high as jurisdictions battled it out for the crown of the "go-to" jurisdiction for cross border restructurings.
Legislative changes in Singapore and the EU introduce pre-insolvency processes facilitating non-consensual debt restructurings or cram downs comparable to those already available in London and New York. In particular, the EU Recast Insolvency Regulation (the "Recast Regulation") came into effect on June 26, 2017, enhancing cross-border co-operation for applicable insolvency proceedings starting in the EU after that date.*
With its judgment of November 28, 2016, the German Supreme Tax Court (Bundesfinanzhof; “BFH”) dismissed the application of the tax administration’s so-called restructuring decree (Sanierungserlass). The restructuring decree allowed, subject to certain conditions, a suspension and abatement of taxes on so-called cancellation-of-debt income (“COD-Income”) otherwise resulting from certain recapitalization measures such as the waiver of debt and “debt-to-equity swaps”.
A crisis far beyond anything experienced in recent memory
The way in which regulators, investors, banks and governments respond to the current sovereign debt challenges will echo for many years. Decisions made today will, for better or worse, continue to have consequences far beyond our current time horizon. Getting it right will not be easy.
We take a look at the reforms to the EC Insolvency Regulation in light of the European Parliament’s 4 February vote on the committee of legal affairs’ report on the proposed reforms.
The background
The global crisis and the rights of foreign creditors of Sovereign States
The global financial crisis has been well documented in the press, with one recent headline in The Times reading “Like Iceland, Ireland can refuse to pay up”. Claims that States face bankruptcy not unnaturally raise the alarm bells for the financial markets. Can States be sued if they default in payment? RPC recently enforced a claim against assets of an EU State, as discussed below...
Bankrupt States: A misnomer