INTRODUCTION

In the current economic climate, security for payment is key. Although banks have started to lend money again, they remain cautious and those construction firms with weak balance sheets remain at risk of insolvency. This article discusses five pitfalls in the context of some relevant case-law and devices to protect against these.

On August 11, 2009, the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York denied five motions to dismiss bankruptcy cases filed by certain bankruptcy remote, special purpose subsidiaries (SPEs) of General Growth Properties, Inc. (GGP). The motions were filed by or on behalf of secured lenders to the SPEs (Movants) who argued that the bankruptcy filings were inconsistent with the bankruptcy remote structures that they had negotiated with GGP.

The Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently held in Edward S. Weisfelner, as Litigation Trustee of the LB Creditor Trust v. Fund 1., et al.

Armed with an adjudicator’s decision and a TCC enforcement judgment, can a party issue a statutory demand for payment, even if the other party has a genuine and substantial cross claim against the sum awarded? No, said Judge Stephen Davies in Shaw v MFP. Neither the Construction Act nor the Scheme was intended to displace the position under the Insolvency Rules, which give the court discretion to set aside a statutory demand if the debtor appears to have a counterclaim, set-off or cross demand which equals or exceeds the debt in the statutory demand.

In a case of importance to foreign representatives of foreign debtors seeking the assistance of US courts pursuant to chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held that the debtor eligibility requirements of section 109(a) of the US Bankruptcy Code apply in cases under chapter 15 as they would in cases under other chapters of the Bankruptcy Code. The decision in Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), Case No. 13-612 (2d Cir. Dec.

In France, when bankruptcy proceedings are instituted against a party involved in a pending arbitration it can result in conflicts between the applicable arbitration and insolvency rules. In that context, an arbitral tribunal sitting in France may be confronted with determining the extent to which they must defer to mandatory insolvency rules.

Prepayment premiums (also referred to as make-whole premiums) are a common feature in loan documents, allowing lenders to recover a lump-sum amount if a borrower pays off loan obligations prior to maturity, effectively compensating lenders for yield that they would have otherwise received absent prepayment. As a result of the widespread use of such provisions, three circuit courts of appeal – the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Second, Third and Fifth Circuit – have recently had to address the enforceability of prepayment provisions in bankruptcy.

In a case of significant importance to licensees of US intellectual property, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held in Jaffé v. Samsung Electronics Co. (In re Qimonda), Case No. 12-1802, 2003 WL 26478864 (4th Cir. Dec. 3, 2013) (“Jaffé”), that a bankruptcy court did not err by requiring that the protections of section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code apply with respect to a foreign debtor’s US intellectual property (“IP”) as a condition of granting the debtor’s foreign representative relief under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Thailand introduced reforms to its bankruptcy laws in 1998 in the aftermath of the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Those reforms introduced business reorganisation provisions similar to the Chapter 11 provisions of the US Bankruptcy Code. Further amendments have been made to the Thai bankruptcy laws, which are now governed by the Bankruptcy Act BE 2483 (1940) as amended by the Bankruptcy Act (No. 7) BE 2547 (2004).