The banking reform package marks an important step toward the completion of the European post-crisis regulatory reforms

Sports Direct International plc's last-minute offer to buy substantially all of the assets of House of Fraser out of administration is the latest example of a pre-packaged administration being used to rescue a failing business and continue it as a going concern.

The House of Fraser pre-pack sale to Sports Direct, the British retail group headed by Mike Ashley, was announced almost immediately after House of Fraser entered into administration, and included a transfer of its UK stores, the brand and all of its stock and employees.

Introduction

The judgment of Snowden J. in the adjournment of the convening hearing relating to a scheme of arrangement (the “Scheme”) proposed by Indah Kiat International Finance Company B.V. (“Indah Kiat”) emphasises some important points that must be borne in mind by debtors, investors and advisers when preparing for a scheme, such as the importance of allowing sufficient time for preparation of all relevant supporting evidence and documentation, and allowing for a realistic notice period for creditors.

Executive Order n° 2014-326 of 12 March 2014 reforming French insolvency proceedings was published in the Official Journal of the French Republic (Journal officiel de la République Française) on 14 March 2014.

Considered a priority by the Government, the objectives of this reform include, notably, favoring preventative measures and increasing the powers of creditors.¹ Below are the principal provisions which will enter into force on 1 July 2014:

Amicable proceedings: mandat ad hoc, conciliation proceeding

On the bill of the Federal German Government for an Act Serving the Further Facilitation of the Reorganization of Enterprises (ESUG)

On September 15, 2009, the United States Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York ordered Metavante Corporation (“Metavante”) to make payments to Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (“LBSF”) under a prepetition interest rate swap agreement guaranteed by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI” and, together with LBSF, “Lehman”) after Metavante had suspended ordinary course settlement payments under the swap.1 Metavante claimed a contractual right to withhold payment under Section 2(a)(iii) of the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement as a result of Lehman’s bankruptcy.

On July 22, 2008, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed denial of the motion of Parmalat S.p.A. ("New Parmalat") to extend an injunction provided to its predecessor, Parmalat Finanziaria, S.p.A., under Bankruptcy Code section 304, against securities fraud actions.1 Although the appeal addressed the issue of injunction in the context of superseded Bankruptcy Code section 304, this decision and the underlying lower court opinion signify other issues of broader import, including the need for careful plan drafting and the complexities inherent in cross-border cases.

Creditors often compromise disputed claims against debtors and their guarantors. In connection with the settlement of claims against a debtor and its guarantor, the creditor may give the debtor and the guarantor written releases from further liability in exchange for a settlement payment. But what if the creditor later surrenders a portion of the payment in settlement of a preference recovery action? Can the creditor revive the guarantee notwithstanding the release?

In Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. Whalen (In re Enron Corp.), the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York considered whether the debtor’s pre-bankruptcy payment of an employment bonus one day before it became due was “for or on account of an antecedent debt owed by the debtor before such transfer was made” for purposes of determining whether section 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code made the payment avoidable as a preferential transfer.