In sophisticated real estate financing transactions, most prudent lenders attempt to deter borrowers from filing for bankruptcy before loans are paid in full by providing in loan documents that such a filing constitutes an event of default. Many lenders will insist that their borrowers remain “bankruptcy remote” in the form of a so-called “single asset real estate” entity during the term of the loan.
The High Court has recently struck out proceedings against a defaulting debtor where the bank made a unilateral commercial decision to delay to allow her co-debtor to recover financially so increasing its prospect of recovery.
Background
In Bank of Ireland v Wilson,1 the bank commenced summary proceedings against the defaulting debtors in 2012. The debtors, who were jointly and severally liable on the debt, had been in a relationship but were now estranged.
In a small victory for landlords of bankrupt tenants, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas has ruled that the Chuck E. Cheese parent company may not use its bankruptcy filing to avoid paying its rent.
The United States Congress revived the age-old tradition of passing a lame-duck Christmas Tree appropriations bill to fund the government and provide a second wave of much-needed COVID-19 relief legislation.[1] The nearly 5,600-page bill includes temporary alterations to the Bankruptcy Code to help thos
The Supreme Court has held that transfer of winding up proceedings from High Court to NCLT on application of financial creditor not party to proceedings before Court is permissible.
Observing that the proceedings for winding up of a company are actually proceedings in rem to which the entire body of creditors is a party, the Court held that the words ‘party or parties’ appearing in 5th proviso to Section 434(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 would take within its fold any creditor of the company in liquidation.
One of the big decisions to come out of 2020 was the Supreme Court’s judgment in Bresco Electrical Services Ltd v. Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd [2020] UKSC 25 in which it was held an insolvent party can adjudicate a dispute.
However, the Supreme Court went on to say that an adjudicator’s decision obtained by an insolvent party may not be enforced because of the insolvency: that was something the Technology and Construction Court has to decide on a case by case basis in enforcement proceedings.
So what happened next?
Congress passed the long-awaited Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (“CAA”) December 22, 2020, which now is awaiting the President’s signature to become law. The CAA contains several COVID-19-related amendments to the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq. (“Bankruptcy Code”), which may affect creditors. The CAA’s “Bankruptcy Relief” amendments are set forth in Title X of the Act. Those amendments of greatest interest to creditors are:
Business headlines have warned of a potential “chilling effect on buyouts” as a result of the decision recently issued by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in In re: Nine West LBO Securities Litigation (Dec. 4, 2020). Contrary to the views of some other commentators on the decision, we do not believe that the decision is likely to chill leveraged buyout activity, to upend how LBOs have been conducted, or to significantly increase the potential of liability for target company directors selling the company in an LBO.
The Guernsey Royal Court recently handed down judgment which brought to an end an important chapter in a long-running dispute regarding control of the exploration and exploitation of the oil and gas reserves of Georgia. The case involved a rare blessing application under section 426 of the Companies Law in an insolvency context, enabling the liquidator to get their decision blessed by the Royal Court.