The English High Court has recently delivered judgment in the IMO Car Wash case (In the matter of Bluebrook Ltd and others [2009] EWHC 2114 (Ch)), in which the High Court considered whether to sanction three related schemes of arrangement for restructuring indebtedness proposed by the IMO Car Wash group to the senior lenders of the relevant group companies.  

Background

On 23 February 2011, the Federal Government (Bundeskabinett) adopted the government draft (Regierungsentwurf) of an act (Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur weiteren Erleichterung der Sanierung von Unternehmen) that proposes material changes to the German Insolvency Act (Insolvenzordnung). The government's aim is to modify the economic terms for the restructuring of distressed companies .

In the fourth quarter of 2008, global credit markets were virtually frozen, leading many distressed businesses and their constituents to take measures to avoid bankruptcy filings at almost all costs. Without access to debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing, bankruptcy most often results in liquidation – and with lenders reluctant to provide new money, even in exchange for superpriority and/or priming liens, total collapse became an increasingly common result.

Recently the German Federal Government introduced a reform of the German Insolvency Code by adopting a draft bill of an Act to Further Facilitate the Restructuring of Businesses (the “Bill”). The Bill primarily focuses on the facilitation of insolvency plans as a tool for restructurings and to eliminate certain obstacles of the German insolvency law. If enacted as proposed, the Bill would simplify the purchase of shares of an insolvent company and would give investors more influence and flexibility in in-solvency plan proceedings.

INSOLVENCY PLANS

During the bankruptcy cycle following the recession of 2001, numerous debtors – notably airlines such as US Airways and United Air Lines, Inc. – undertook “distress terminations” of their ERISA-qualified defined benefit pension plans, which are insured by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). The PBGC found itself holding large general unsecured claims arising from significant underfunding of pension plans insured by the PBGC as a result of these terminations. Efforts by the PBGC to obtain either administrative priority or secured status for these claims invariably failed.1

Background

Although courts are generally reluctant to equitably subordinate claims of non-insiders, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Montana recently did just that to the claims of a non-insider lender based on overreaching and self-serving conduct in Credit Suisse v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (In Re Yellowstone Mt. Club, LLC), Case No. 08-61570-11, Adv. No. 09-00014 (Bankr. D. Mont. May 13, 2009).

In a 113-page decision (click here to read decision) that is sure to be applauded by lenders and bond traders alike, Judge Alan S. Gold of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, in overturning a Bankruptcy Court opinion that has caused lenders much concern, has issued a stern ruling that provides a bulwark against efforts by creditors and trustees in bankruptcy to expand the scope of the fraudulent conveyance provisions under the Bankruptcy Code.

Introduction

This article addresses bankruptcy issues commonly arising in connection with intercreditor agreements, and is intended to provide a general examination of provisions that relate specifically to bankruptcy or other insolvency proceedings. By reviewing variations of these provisions that have appeared in negotiated second lien financings, the discussion provides a checklist that will be useful at the front end of deals of this kind.

Before Polish insolvency law was significantly amended in January 2016, restructurings were extremely rare, with corporate insolvencies ending in liquidation in more than 90% of all cases. At that point, the number of insolvencies ending in the liquidation of the debtor’s assets significantly exceeded successful restructurings – the focus had been mainly on satisfying the creditors – and allowing the debtor to continue his business was not a major priority for the legislator and the courts.