The insolvency of companies in Russia is often caused by the negligent or illegal actions of their shareholders and/or management. The Russian Federal Law on Insolvency has been amended to introduce stricter rules on “controlling persons,” which increases their liability for the damage caused to creditors by their actions. Continue Reading
A recent decision in the High Court provided guidance with respect to the apparent conflict between freezing orders that have been granted over assets that are subject to an existing security. Generally speaking, a freezing order should only catch the unsecured elements of assets.
The question facing the court in Taylor v Van Dutch Marine Holding Ltd  EWHC 636 (Ch) was whether TCA Global Master Fund LP (the “Secured Debenture Holder”) required a variation of a freezing order obtained by Kevin Taylor (the “Bridging Lender”). The Bridging Lender had secured a $2.5m judgment over the four defendants who were held to be jointly and severally liable. He was also successful in obtaining a freezing order over all of the defendants’ assets. Continue Reading
In an important decision for secured creditors, the Ninth Circuit recently held that the proper “cramdown” valuation of a secured creditor’s collateral is its replacement value, regardless of whether the foreclosure value would generate a higher valuation of the collateral. The appellate court’s decision has the potential to significantly impact lenders that include certain types of restrictions on the use of the collateral (such as low income housing requirements) in their financing documents.
In First Southern Nat’l Bank v. Sunnyslope Housing Ltd. P’ship (In re Sunnyslope Housing Ltd. P’ship), No. 13-16180, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9198 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc), the debtor owned an apartment complex in Phoenix, Arizona. The financing for the apartment complex came primarily from an $8.5 million loan funded by Capstone Realty Advisors, LLC (“Capstone”), which was secured by a first priority deed of trust. The Capstone loan was guaranteed by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”). Continue Reading
The English courts have recently wrestled with the Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (“CBIR”) in a case about the lifting of the automatic stay on proceedings against Korean company STX Offshore & Shipbuilding Co Ltd
In the present case (Re International Bank of Azerbaijan OJSC) the English High Court found itself dealing with the application of Azerbaijan’s largest bank for an order recognising restructuring proceedings in Azerbaijan as main proceedings under the CBIR and imposing an administration moratorium in the UK.
A recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit provides additional guidance with respect to jurisdictional disputes that bankruptcy professionals often see in practice. In particular, the Gupta v. Quincy Med. Ctr., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9814 (1st Cir. June 2, 2017) case analyzed whether a bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to adjudicate a post-sale dispute among a purchaser of estate assets and former employees of the debtors.
In Gupta, the debtors operated the Steward Family Hospital in Quincy, Massachusetts. The debtors executed an asset purchase agreement (the “APA”) to sell the hospital to a subsidiary of Steward Health Care System (“Steward” or “Purchaser”). A day later on July 1, 2011, the debtors filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and submitted a 363 sale motion to approve the APA. Provisions of the APA obligated Steward to pay certain severance obligations owed to employees terminated by Steward on or after the sale closing. Continue Reading
You might have noticed that the UK is heading to the polls on 8 June.
Elections of course create a great deal of uncertainty. One of the few things we can be certain of is that whichever party (or coalition of parties) succeeds, the new UK government faces significant challenges going forward, not least of all negotiating Britain’s exit from the European Union whilst establishing a strong footing on the world stage. The question is, however, with each party focusing on Brexit and the economy, how will the manifestos affect UK businesses?
The Institute for Fiscal Studies published its analysis of the Conservative and Labour Party manifestos on Friday 26 May and criticised both heavily as failing to address the long-term challenges faced by the country. This blog picks out some of the key areas highlighted in that report most likely to affect UK business.
A recent decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals may have muddied the question of the impact of collateral rent assignments on a debtor’s ability to re-organize under chapter 11.
Town Center Flats LLC v. ECP Commercial II LLC involved a fairly standard real estate finance transaction for a multi-unit residential complex in Michigan. The loan used to finance the complex was secured by a mortgage and an assignment of rents. The assignment of rents was structured as an absolute transfer, coupled with a license for the debtor to utilize the rents until the occurrence of an event of default. Upon default, the agreement provided that the license would automatically terminate, thus re-vesting the rents in the secured party assignee.
From June this year, several specialist courts of the High Court of England and Wales are being banded together under a new title – “THE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES”.
The idea is to give these specialised courts a memorable and (it is hoped) user-friendly umbrella title, whilst still preserving the value of the existing brands of the individual courts.
The specialist courts that will co-exist under this new umbrella comprise the Commercial Court (including the Admiralty and Mercantile Court), the Technology and Construction Court (“TCC”) and the various distinct courts which make up the Chancery Division (including the Bankruptcy and Companies Court).
The new title will not replace the existing individual names of the specialist courts per se but will appear as the new heading on court filings.
As 26 June 2017 approaches – the date of entry into effect of the Recast EU Insolvency Regulation (2015/8484/EU) – we look in detail at the new provisions for co-ordinating the insolvency proceedings of members of a pan-European group of companies and consider whether the new proposals for co-operation will be compulsory, the practicalities of who will pay the co-ordinator’s fees and whether the creditors can have a say in the process. Continue Reading
The Insolvency Rules (England and Wales) 2016 (“IR2016”) came into force on 6 April 2016 applying to most corporate and personal insolvency regimes in England and Wales. However, there is still unfinished business for the Government and further regulation is expected to be introduced later this year to ensure the changes apply uniformly in all areas. Continue Reading