On August 28, 2012, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas vacated a series of bankruptcy court rulings that had blocked Vitro SAB’s noteholders from filing involuntary bankruptcy petitions against Vitro’s non-debtor subsidiary guarantors. In a decision authored by Chief Judge Sidney A.
In recent opinions, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Seventh Circuits have revisited the doctrine of equitable subordination and have underscored the requirement that, before a court can equitably subordinate a creditor’s claim, the court must find that other creditors have been harmed by the actions of the creditor. Importantly, both decisions stress that equitable subordination is meant to be remedial and not punitive, and may not be imposed merely because a creditor has engaged in misconduct.
The debtor made claims against a surety that issued a performance bond in connection with a construction contract. The surety contended that it was not liable for the consequential damage claims.
If Peter Morton and Cinitel Corp. had their way, every lender would have a distinct duty to a guarantor to permit the sale of a defaulting borrower’s assets as a going concern. In their view, a lender should be required to maximize its recovery from the borrower and to minimize any claim made on a guarantee. Fulfilling that duty would also obligate a lender to keep funding a borrower while that asset sale was negotiated and completed. It is enough to make any lender cringe.
Fortunately, the Ontario Court of Appeal disagreed with Morton and Cinitel’s view of the lending world.
The case of White v Davenham Trust Ltd, has reaffirmed that a creditor can choose its own method of enforcing a debt which has been guaranteed even where it might hold security for that debt.
A guarantor can be made bankrupt where the terms of the guarantee create a debt obligation.
The court has held that a statutory demand is valid despite the high default interest rate on an underlying loan.
In June 2007 we reported on the decision in Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v PRG Powerhouse Limited. Although the case has given rise to a great deal of debate, until now there has been no subsequent reported case in which the court has had to consider whether and how a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) might fairly effect a compromise of a landlord's claim against a guarantor of its tenant.
A question facing many landlords is whether, when a tenant company faces insolvency and shows no intention of continuing to trade from the premises, they should take back the property and seek to relet it?
There are several key issues here, including:
- rates liability
- mitigating losses
- ability to recover from third parties and former tenants.
A landlord's decision has often turned on the type of insolvency faced by the tenant.
If a liquidator disclaims the lease: