Recent declines in the trading prices of many companies' debt securities has created opportunities for those companies to reacquire a portion or all of that debt at substantial discounts through open market repurchases, privately negotiated transactions and tender offers. In some cases, the opportunities for discounted repurchases come to companies directly from investors seeking to sell the debt back in order to meet their own cash needs or otherwise obtain liquidity for thinly-traded securities.

The Banking Bill recasts key aspects of bank supervision and insolvency. With such wide-ranging changes to digest, financial institutions and other companies could be forgiven for ignoring the seemingly obscure clauses relating to financial collateral. But these provisions could remove legal uncertainty for those taking collateral particularly in traded markets (like energy trading) where banks are not always the main players.

A recent decision by the Delaware bankruptcy court highlights the issues which must be considered by private equity firms, investment funds and other entities who play an active role in the management of their financially distressed portfolio companies.

What are the principal types of insolvency proceedings?

Readers will recall, on April 1, 2020 the RF President signed RF Law No. 98-FZ, amending RF Law No. 127-FZ On Insolvency (Bankruptcy) of October 26, 2002 (the Law) and authorising the Government to impose a moratorium on creditors’ initiation of bankruptcies to stabilize the economy in exceptional cases (a Moratorium).

Immediately thereafter, by Decree No. 428 of April 3, 2020 as part of the COVID-19 relief program, the Government adopted such a Moratorium until 7 January 2021 (the COVID Moratorium).

On 26 June, the long-awaited Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 became law providing the UK (but with separate provisions for Northern Ireland) with temporary and permanent changes to insolvency law aimed at helping businesses manage the economic implications of COVID-19 including:

Permanent measures

In a decision to be welcomed by ratepayers, the Court of Appeal in Rossendale Borough Council and others v. Hurstwood Properties (A) Limited and others [2019] EWCA Civ 364 has confirmed that certain types of mitigation schemes are not sufficient to pierce the corporate veil and transfer liability for business rates to the beneficiaries of those schemes.

Liability for business rates

LBI EHF (in winding up) v. Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich AG and Raiffeisen Bank International AG [2017] EWHC 522 (Comm)

Ministerial Decisions

Ministerial Decision No. 212/2016 Issuing the Regulations on cultural initiatives Issued on 5 December 2016. Effective from the day after its publication date

Ministerial Decision No. 238/2016 Determining the fees for enrolment in the table of lawyers Issued on 1 December 2016. Effective from the day after its publication date

Introduction

The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench decision in Redwater Energy Corporation Re, 2016 ABQB 278, written by Chief Justice Neil Wittmann, clarifies that the provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) addressing the environmental liability of trustees render certain provisions of provincial regulatory legislation addressing wells and pipelines inoperative to the extent they conflict with the BIA.