Where lenders are lending to and taking security from companies that may become subject to special administration regimes, the value of the security may be affected and enforcement options restricted. More companies are subject to these procedures than you might think. So, how do you identify whether your borrower is subject to one of these regimes? Should you place a lower value on your security? What are your enforcement rights? Might your borrower become affected after grant of the security?
Special administration regimes
The Russian insolvency legislation mainly consists of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (the Civil Code) and the Federal Law No. 127-FZ on insolvency (bankruptcy) dated 26 October 2002 (the Insolvency Law), the principal legislation on insolvency in the Russian Federation.
Where lenders rely on floating charge security to make recoveries from companies in administration, some recent cases have massively increased the potential for administration expenses to swallow up those recoveries. The more well-known cases could just be the start. So, what are the potential risks? What can lenders do in the face of the law as it currently stands? What is going to happen next?
The Nortel decisions
Treasury has made a new set of Financial Markets and Insolvency Regulations that change the insolvency regime that applies to RIEs and RCHs. The Regulations amend several existing pieces of legislation including Part VII Companies Act 1989 and the 1991 Regulations. The changes include:
There has been an upturn in the frequency of trade finance workouts, restructurings and formal insolvencies. Susan Moore and Luci Mitchell-Fry look at some key issues that banks face when trade finance lending passes to "bad bank".
The bank's decisions at every stage of a trade finance transaction are critical: at origination; when following a workout/restructuring; and once a formal insolvency process becomes a reality.
Origination
Section 147 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) provides that the Superintendent’s Levy is applied to defray the supervisory expenses of the Superintendent, will be charged on dividend payments made by the trustee.
Introduction
The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada last month in Century Services Inc. v. Canada1 is of striking interest to the tax and insolvency bars. The Court considered Crown priorities, in particular, the various “deemed trust” provisions found in section 227 of the Income Tax Act (Canada),2 section 86 of the Employment Insurance Act,3 section 23 of the Canada Pension Plan (the “CPP”)4 and in particular section 222 of the Excise Tax Act (GST Portions).5
On November 25, LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc. (“LandAmerica”) filed a Chapter 11 petition in Virginia, seeking bankruptcy protection. By separate agreement (the “Stock Purchase Agreement”), LandAmerica agreed to sell Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company (“Commonwealth”) to Chicago Title Insurance Company (“Chicago Title”) and Lawyers Title Insurance Company (“Lawyers”) and United Capital Title Insurance Company (“United”) to Fidelity National Title Insurance Company (“Fidelity”).
On 26 July 2010, the Insolvency Service issued proposals for a new type of short-term restructuring moratorium. The moratorium would be available through a court-based process to companies with a viable business and the general support of creditors. The proposed moratorium could have the potential to encourage more companies to view the UK as an attractive jurisdiction for restructuring.
What are the proposals?
The main features are:
The Humber Valley Resort Corporation and related companies (collectively, “Humber Valley”) applied for, and was granted, an Initial Order from the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court (Trial Division) staying proceedings against it for one month under the CCAA. On this same date, the Court authorized a DIP lending facility of up to $600,000.00, with a first priority charge over various of Humber Valley’s assets. At the end of the initial stay period, Humber Valley brought two further applications.