In a recent decision, Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts1, the United States Supreme Court considered whether a debtor has an absolute right under Section 706(a) of the Bankruptcy Code to convert a case to Chapter 13, clarifying a growing split among circuits as to whether the debtor’s bad faith conduct prior to his proposed conversion results in the forfeiture of the debtor’s right to convert.

The Indonesian Supreme Court has provided guidance on the availability of the key restructuring process in Indonesia – the examination process of a suspension of payment or restructuring (Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang or PKPU). The guidance comes amidst a challenging economic climate and limits the remedies available to secured creditors by preventing secured creditors from initiating a PKPU.

PKPU as a Restructuring Channel

In its April 2018 decision, the BGH ruled on the question whether the directors of a company that has been granted debtor in possession status by the respective insolvency court can become personally liable for a breach of a duty of care vis-à-vis the creditors like an insolvency administrator. The underlying legal question was the subject of a controversial academic discussion in the past.

The judgment of Snowden J. in the adjournment of the convening hearing relating to a scheme of arrangement (the “Scheme”) proposed by Indah Kiat International Finance Company B.V. (“Indah Kiat”) emphasises some important points that must be borne in mind by debtors, investors and advisers when preparing for a scheme, such as the importance of allowing sufficient time for preparation of all relevant supporting evidence and documentation, and allowing for a realistic notice period for creditors.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals has recently held in Sun Capital Partners III, LP v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund, No. 12-2312 (July 24, 2013), a case of first impression at the Circuit Court level, that a private equity fund that exercises sufficient control over a portfolio company may be considered a “trade or business” for purposes of Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

When a creditor seeks equitable relief in a bankruptcy court, must the court always follow common law principles of equity? Not according to several courts, including the Second Circuit. Concluding that the granting of equitable remedies may circumvent the Bankruptcy Code's equitable distribution system, courts have limited the application of equitable remedies in the bankruptcy context.

Creditors often compromise disputed claims against debtors and their guarantors. In connection with the settlement of claims against a debtor and its guarantor, the creditor may give the debtor and the guarantor written releases from further liability in exchange for a settlement payment. But what if the creditor later surrenders a portion of the payment in settlement of a preference recovery action? Can the creditor revive the guarantee notwithstanding the release?

In Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. Whalen (In re Enron Corp.), the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York considered whether the debtor’s pre-bankruptcy payment of an employment bonus one day before it became due was “for or on account of an antecedent debt owed by the debtor before such transfer was made” for purposes of determining whether section 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code made the payment avoidable as a preferential transfer.

Bankruptcy can provide important advantages to companies considering M&A activity today. M&A purchases of bankrupt companies obviously often feature significantly depressed valuations and a small universe of potentially viable purchasers.

M&A activity that is part of the bankruptcy process will prioritize speed and efficiency, offering a number of potentially important benefits over the traditional merger process, including:

On 8 November 2017, the High Court released its decision in Re Attilan Group Ltd [2017] SGHC 283 (the "Attilan" case). The decision is interesting as it marks the first time the High Court had the opportunity to hear arguments on section 211E of the Companies Act (the "Act") on super priority for rescue financing.