Legislative changes in Singapore and the EU introduce pre-insolvency processes facilitating non-consensual debt restructurings or cram downs comparable to those already available in London and New York. In particular, the EU Recast Insolvency Regulation (the "Recast Regulation") came into effect on June 26, 2017, enhancing cross-border co-operation for applicable insolvency proceedings starting in the EU after that date.*

Key points:

• While DIP Lenders rightfully negotiate for super-priority administrative expenses which trump post conversion chapter 7 administrative expenses, these provisions are not uniformly enforced.

• DIP Lenders should require the inclusion of specific language providing that section 364(c)(1) super-priority claims have priority over chapter 7 administrative expense claims, including those to be incurred by a chapter 7 trustee above the agreed upon “burial expenses.”  

Two recent court decisions may result in a broadening of the range of options available to an equity sponsor in respect of an insolvent portfolio company. The first decision may provide increased flexibility in structuring asset sales in certain chapter 11 settings, by utilizing escrows and other techniques to potentially avoid the need to apply asset-sale proceeds strictly in accordance with creditor priorities under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

Several recent legal developments will likely impact acquisition finance.

On 31 October 2011, MF Global UK Limited, an insolvent investment broker, became the first investment firm to enter the special administration regime (the “SAR”) created by the Investment Bank Special Administration Regulations 2011 (SI 2011/245).

The SAR was adopted in February 2011 following the collapse of Lehman Brothers and has the advantage over ordinary corporate administration in that it sets special objectives for the administrator and this is the first time the SAR has been used. The SAR sets three objectives for a special administrator:

In pari delicto is a common law defense against liability in circumstances where the culpability of the plaintiff is at least as great as the culpability of the defendant. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania clarified Pennsylvania law on this on February 16, 2010, in Official Comm. Of Unsecured Creditors of Allegheny Health, Educ. & Research Found. v.

The last year and a half was a time to be remembered in bankruptcy law. It started with an eye on increasing the ability of small businesses to utilize the Chapter 11 process in a more efficient and less expensive way, which led to a record number of commercial filings, a reduction in consumer filings, and a test of the bankruptcy system. What will the second half of 2021 look like?

The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s holding that the contemporaneous exchange for new value defense to a preference action under § 547(c) applied to a creditor bank that released its liens for less than full payment.

In so ruling, the Eighth Circuit BAP held that the bankruptcy trustee could not recover two of the three payments that the debtor made to the bank during the 90-day pre-petition preference period.

In an agricultural lien contest between three creditors of a bankrupt commercial farm, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently affirmed the trial court’s award of summary judgment in favor of a bank that provided debtor-in-possession financing, holding that the locale of the farm products determined the applicable lien law and that bank’s lien was superior to the liens of two nurseries that supplied trees and shrubs because the latter were either unperfected or unenforceable.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit recently applied the “conceivable effect” test in holding that a bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction over a state law fraud claim raised by a third party regarding the validity of a lender’s lien, and therefore, declined to consider the issue on appeal.

In so ruling, the Panel ruled that the state law fraud claim did not invoke “arising under” or “arising in” jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court because the state law fraud claim was not created or determined by the Bankruptcy Code, and could exist outside of bankruptcy.