The recent bankruptcy filings by infrastructure companies Connector 2000 Association Inc., South Bay Expressway, L.P., California Transportation Ventures, Inc., and the Las Vegas Monorail Company have tested the structures utilized to implement public-private partnerships (P3s) in the United States in several respects. It is still too early to draw definitive conclusions about the impact of these proceedings on P3 structures going forward, but initial rulings in two of the cases are already focusing the minds of project participants on threshold structuring considerations.
CEC Entertainment, the parent company of kid-friendly and iconic “dinnertainment” restaurant and arcade chain—Chuck E.
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.
The Court of Appeal1 has ruled that foreign judgments in insolvency proceedings may be enforced by the English courts at common law, and that the ordinary principles which may prevent the enforcement of foreign judgments do not apply to insolvency judgments where the action from which the foreign judgment arises is integral to the collective nature of the insolvency proceedings.
Facts
BJ Services, a Texas-based provider of hydraulic fracturing (i.e., “fracking”) and cementing services for upstream oil and gas companies, filed for chapter 11 protection on July 20, 2020, in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, along with three of its affiliates. Their chapter 11 filings were prompted by unsuccessful restructuring negotiations with one of their equity sponsors—CSL Capital Management—which would have provided a $75 million new money investment, including $30 million in the form of DIP financing, in exchange for the majority of the reorganized equity.
In Michigan State Housing Development Authority v. Lehman Brothers Derivatives Products, Inc., et al. (In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., et al.) (Michigan State Housing), 1 the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the Bankruptcy Court) recently held that a provision in a swap agreement that shifted the methodology for calculating termination amounts upon the debtor counterparty’s bankruptcy was enforceable under the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor for liquidating, terminating and accelerating swap agreements.
Thailand introduced reforms to its bankruptcy laws in 1998 in the aftermath of the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Those reforms introduced business reorganisation provisions similar to the Chapter 11 provisions of the US Bankruptcy Code. Further amendments have been made to the Thai bankruptcy laws, which are now governed by the Bankruptcy Act BE 2483 (1940) as amended by the Bankruptcy Act (No. 7) BE 2547 (2004).
Can state regulatory agencies move ahead with lawsuits against businesses who file for bankruptcy in order to enforce consumer protection and business laws, or does the automatic stay’s broad injunctive sweep capture those actions? The answer depends on whether the state is acting in its regulatory capacity or simply like another creditor – and the distinction is not always clear.
In a case of importance to foreign representatives of foreign debtors seeking the assistance of US courts pursuant to chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held that the debtor eligibility requirements of section 109(a) of the US Bankruptcy Code apply in cases under chapter 15 as they would in cases under other chapters of the Bankruptcy Code. The decision in Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), Case No. 13-612 (2d Cir. Dec.
Although in some jurisdictions arbitration is a long-established form of alternative dispute resolution, this mechanism has only recently been regulated in Brazil. The Brazilian Commercial Code, enacted in 1850, already included a few sparse provisions regarding commercial arbitration, but there were no references to specific rules. It was not until 1996 that Brazil passed its first specific arbitration statute, Law No. 9,307/96 (Arbitration Law).