Several recent cases in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York have created ambiguity about when distressed exchange offers violate Section 316(b) of the 1939 Trust Indenture Act (the “TIA”). It appears that plaintiffs’ lawyers are using this ambiguity to challenge distressed exchange offers. The threat of litigation may give minority bondholders a powerful tool to hinder less than fully consensual out-of-court restructurings and provide them with increased leverage in negotiations.

The Bottom Line:

The Bottom Line:

Overview

In November 2015, the German legislator passed the Resolution Mechanism Act (Abwicklungsmechanismusgesetz, AbwMechG). The law introduces, among other things, Section 46f (5) et seqq. of the German Banking Act (Kreditwesengesetz, KWG), which requires that claims under certain unsecured debt instruments be subordinated to general senior unsecured obligations in an insolvency proceeding involving a German bank.

The Court of Appeal decision in the Nortel case upheld the High Court ruling that FSD/CN liability is an expense of the administration and therefore ranks ahead of administrators' remuneration, floating charges and unsecured creditors. Much of the press coverage which has followed in the immediate aftermath seems to have assumed that the decision is a victory for "good" pensioners over the "bad" banks.

Summary

A recent court decision confirmed that transparent pre-pack sales can be used where they are in the best interests of the creditors as a whole. The court ruled that:

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware has approved a settlement agreement between three Sea Containers companies, their unsecured creditors and the trustees of the two pension schemes belonging to the UK subsidiary Sea Containers Services Limited.

Summary

Background to Re Permacell

In Mukamal v. Bakes,1 the trustee of two trusts created under a chapter 11 plan of reorganization filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) against the former directors and officers of the debtors, the dominant shareholders of the debtors and the debtors’ accounting firm, alleging, among other things, various breaches of fiduciary duties.