In Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. Whalen (In re Enron Corp.), the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York considered whether the debtor’s pre-bankruptcy payment of an employment bonus one day before it became due was “for or on account of an antecedent debt owed by the debtor before such transfer was made” for purposes of determining whether section 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code made the payment avoidable as a preferential transfer.

On May 14, 2009, Judge Allan Gropper of the US Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, approved a US$400 million DIP financing package in the US$27 billion General Growth Properties, Inc. (“GGP”) Chapter 11 case. Judge Gropper’s ruling also included approval of GGP’s proposal to use cash flow generated by shopping centers, structured by GGP as bankruptcy remote, special purpose entities, to fund GGP’s ongoing central operations while in bankruptcy.  

The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (the “BAPCPA”) created an additional category of administrative expenses

Debt-for-debt exchanges are not new, but are worth revisiting given the current economic climate. Furthermore, the recently enacted "Stimulus Act"1 provides some temporary relief to debtors from potentially harsh tax consequences of restructuring. The following discussion is relevant to issuers (also referred to as debtors) or holders (also referred to as creditors) of debt who are "US persons" (as defined in the US Internal Revenue Code).2

In order to illustrate some of the key US federal income tax consequences of a debt-for-debt exchange, consider the following example:

In July 2006, after a long and unsuccessful attempt to reach an out-of-court restructuring of the indebtedness of the Eurotunnel group of companies, the managers of the Eurotunnel group requested the opening of main insolvency proceedings for all the companies in France.

On 8 November 2017, the High Court released its decision in Re Attilan Group Ltd [2017] SGHC 283 (the "Attilan" case). The decision is interesting as it marks the first time the High Court had the opportunity to hear arguments on section 211E of the Companies Act (the "Act") on super priority for rescue financing.

Due to the ongoing financial crisis and the economic downturn accompanied therewith, many German companies are or will be struggling with default and insolvency problems.

The Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance 2016 (the "Amendment Ordinance") came into effect on 13 February 2017 seeking to revamp and modernize the winding-up regime in Hong Kong, but does it go far enough?

Setoff is a doctrine based as much on practical considerations as on equitable ones.

One of the recent hot topics in the European restructuring market has been whether the UK Courts would sanction a scheme of arrangement in relation to a foreign company, with no previous connection to the UK whatsoever, where the sole basis for establishing jurisdiction to undertake the scheme would be amending the governing law and jurisdiction clauses of the company’s principal finance documents to English law.