The Legal Statement applies areas of insolvency law to digital assets, providing valuable guidance on the approach English courts will take.
The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Sequana1leaves many unanswered questions, and finding a common thread between the four quite separate judgments has proved challenging for practitioners and directors alike. The recent decision in Hunt v.
The new Spanish Bankruptcy Law in September 2022 (TRLC)1 ushered in perhaps the most radical changes to the domestic restructuring market in any EU Member State that has so far implemented the EU Directive on Preventive Restructuring.2 For the first time, following satisfaction of certain conditions, the disenfranchisemen
The UK water industry is rarely out of the headlines, whether for operational performance issues or reports of perpetual financial distress. It may therefore be more than a coincidence that the UK government has chosen now to introduce new rules for the special administration regime (SAR) that applies to water companies.
Despite three recent landmark UK restructuring plan decisions, uncertainty remains around the value, if any, a plan company should offer dissenting creditors as the “deliverability price” of a plan.
Actions brought against the BHS directors by the group’s liquidators have resulted in the largest reported award for wrongful trading since the provision’s introduction, but the judgment highlights some unsettled areas of the law relating to directors’ duties.
The Legal Statement applies areas of insolvency law to digital assets, providing valuable guidance on the approach English courts will take.
Judicial comments cast doubt on the ability to compromise US law-governed debt effectively based on Chapter 15 recognition alone.
In a new ruling, the UK Supreme Court concluded that the rule applies only when a company is "insolvent or bordering on insolvency".
On 5 October 2022, the UK Supreme Court handed down judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana SA and others (Sequana)1. The case required the court to reconcile differing judicial pronouncements of the "creditors' interest rule" (the Rule) and consider the following questions:
Judicial comments cast doubt on the ability to compromise US law-governed debt effectively based on Chapter 15 recognition alone.