Intercreditor agreements--contracts that lay out the respective rights, obligations and priorities of different classes of creditors--play an increasingly important role in corporate finance in light of the continued prevalence of complex capital structures involving various levels of debt. When a company encounters financial difficulties, intercreditor agreements become all the more important, as competing classes of creditors seek to maximize their share of the company's limited assets.
It is not uncommon to see that the law governing a loan document is different from that of the debtor company’s place of incorporation. Can the rights of the lender be altered by a restructuring plan sanctioned in the latter? The English court said “no” in a recent case1, applying the longstanding Gibbs rule that also applies under Hong Kong law.
Background
Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., No. 15-649 (2017)
Husky Int’l Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz, No. 15-145
Debtors seek the protections of the Bankruptcy Code to have their debts discharged, but there are exceptions. A creditor can prohibit discharge of a debt “obtained by … actual fraud.” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Today, in a 7-1 decision written by Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme Court ruled that a fraudulent conveyance qualifies as “actual fraud.”
Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, No. 14–116 (previously described in the December 15, 2014, Docket Report)
On June 9, 2014, the US Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison (“Executive Benefits”)1 that resolved a fundamental bankruptcy procedural issue that had arisen in the wake of Stern v.
In In re KB Toys Inc.,1 the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the holdings of the lower courts that claims subject to disallowance under Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code are “similarly disallowable in the hands of the subsequent transferee.” According to the Third Circuit, when a creditor owes property to the estate, until that property is returned to the estate, that creditor’s claim, regardless of who holds it, is impaired, and the subsequent sale of that claim cannot ri
HansOLG Hamburg, decision of February 3, 2012 - 8 U 39/11
The Court has heard another case dealing with a defective appointment of administrators under paragraph 22 of Schedule B1 Insolvency Act 1986 (“Schedule B1”)1. Following hot on the tail of a recent series of conflicting cases relating to defective appointments, the Court has held that:
The District Court for the Southern District of New York recently issued an opinion in Picard v. Katz, et al., (In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC),1 which limits avoidance actions against a debtor-broker’s customers to those arising under federal law based on actual, rather than constructive, fraud. The decision was issued by US District Judge Rakoff in the Trustee’s suit against the owners of the New York Mets (along with certain of their friends, family and associates).