There have been some very gloomy stories in the press over the last week or so about rising company insolvency rates. All rather unwelcome during the season of goodwill.
Everyone knows that British businesses are facing a hugely difficult time with challenges coming from all directions – including high energy bills, rising interest rates, strikes, geopolitical uncertainty etc. etc.
But amidst the gloom there are some positives. For example:
The signs for the leveraged finance market in 2011 are mixed. Questions remain as to whether this year will see a fresh spate of restructurings and/or continued growth in primary issuance. Whilst data compiled by Fitch Ratings has shown that European PE backed company default rates slowed in 2010 (and premier league spending during the January transfer window topped £225 million compared with £30 million last year), the primary leveraged finance market has started slowly this year.
Background
Until recently Russian legislation was not familiar with the concept of close-out netting. Although there was no prohibition for market participants to enter into netting agreements, Russian courts would not enforce such agreements in case of bankruptcy. This led to the use of complex structures to avoid the negative consequences of the application of Russian law and was a strong argument in favor of using foreign entities and application of foreign law to derivative transactions.
Esta nota tiene por objeto comentar las innovaciones introducidas por el RD Ley 4/2014 en el ejercicio de acciones de reintegración concursal contra o en el seno de acuerdos de refinanciación.
In light of recent reports released to the market, a lender in the leveraged loan market would be forgiven for indulging in some cautious optimism. New-issuance in July aggregated to €9.5 billion - a 13-month high. The year-to-date leveraged buy-out volume of €10 billion (38 deals) compares favourably with the €2.2 billion of volume (13 deals) for the same period in 2009. Against this backdrop, however, lenders should consider the recently released statistics from the Insolvency Service, and other economic data, which suggest that the economic outlook remains uncertain.
Generally the best evidence of a property’s market value is a recent sale price, but that is not always the case. The First District Appellate Court recently ruled in Calumet Transfer LLC v.
In In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, No. 14-97-bk(L), 2015 WL 727965 (2d Cir. Feb.
A New York bankruptcy court has ruled that certain victims of Bernard Madoff’s highly publicized Ponzi scheme are not entitled to adjust their claims to account for inflation or interest. Securities Investor Protection Corporation v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, 496 B.R. 744 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013). The Madoff Liquidation Trustee brought the motion asking the court to determine that Madoff customers’ “net equity” claims did not include “time-based damages” such as interest and inflation under the Securities Investor Protection Act (“SIPA”).
In a decision that was not surprising but nevertheless disappointing, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently affirmed the order of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court concluding that the “net equity” calculation for distributions back to Madoff victims should be based on the Net Investment Method, the total of actual deposits and withdrawals, and not the last statement amount listed on the final brokerage account statement. As a result, claw back law suits against the inaptly named “net winners” are sure to continue unabated.
Background
On Monday, August 8, 2011, United States Bankruptcy Court Judge Mary Walrath ruled that Harry & David Holdings Inc. the Oregon-based gourmet food and gift company, can terminate its pension plan as part of a pre-arranged bankruptcy plan and emerge from bankruptcy free of its accumulated pension liability. The company convinced the court that it had to terminate the plan in order to successfully emerge from bankruptcy.