Summary

A new set of uniform rules for challenging transactions in insolvency and clarifying the circumstances in which debtors must file for insolvency has been introduced in Russia.

Background  

New restructuring legislation was recently adopted in Belgium and comes into force on 1 April 2009. The Act of 31 January 2009 on the continuity of undertakings (the Act on Continuity) aims to replace the existing judicial composition procedure (concordat judiciaire/ gerechtelijk akkoord) with a more effective and flexible restructuring instrument.  

The key features of the Act on Continuity are:

Although safeguard proceedings have been used successfully as a negotiation tool in a number of high-profile cases (such as the Eurotunnel case), they have represented just 1 per cent of all insolvency proceedings in France since the Business Safeguard Act 2005 introduced the safeguard procedure in January 2006. The main reason for this lack of success is the continuing stigma that is attached to insolvency proceedings in France.

On 24 July 2013, in BESTrustees v Kaupthing, Singer & Friedlander [2013] EWHC 2407 (Ch) the High Court ruled in favour of an underfunded scheme, whose insolvent sponsor hoped to offset £2m in payments against its outstanding debt.

Survival  

Debt maturity profile Companies should ensure that they have a very clear understanding of the timing of their cash needs and in particular of the maturity profile of their debt – when does debt fall due and when will refinancing be required?  

On 24 July 2013, the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgment in the Nortel/Lehman case on where a contribution notice (CN) or financial support direction (FSD) issued by the Pensions Regulator (TPR) on a company that is already in insolvency proceedings (eg administration) ranks in the order of priority of payment.

In the case of Andrew Fender v National Westminster Bank PLC Judge Purle QC set aside a deed of release that had been executed in the mistaken belief that the company was no longer indebted to the bank.

The United States District Court for the District of Delaware recently affirmed a Bankruptcy Court decision that invalidated the use by creditors of so-called “triangular”, or non-mutual, setoffs in which obligations are offset among not only the parties to a bilateral contract but also their affiliates. In re SemCrude, L.P., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42477 (D. Del.

In recent opinions, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Seventh Circuits have revisited the doctrine of equitable subordination and have underscored the requirement that, before a court can equitably subordinate a creditor’s claim, the court must find that other creditors have been harmed by the actions of the creditor. Importantly, both decisions stress that equitable subordination is meant to be remedial and not punitive, and may not be imposed merely because a creditor has engaged in misconduct.

In Simon v. FIA Card Services, N.A.,[1] the U.S.