On 1 July, the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s decision1 to sanction the restructuring plans proposed by two Petrofac group companies as they did not consider that the benefits of the restructuring had been fairly allocated.
Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.
The Courts, practitioners and leading textbooks have always assumed that the Limitation Act 1980 (the Limitation Act) does not apply to claims for relief from unfair prejudice under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 (the Companies Act).
In THG Plc v Zedra Trust Company (Jersey) Limited [2024] EWCA Civ 158, the Court of Appeal examined the basis for that assumption and unanimously decided that:
Court approval of a sale process in receivership or Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) proposal proceedings is generally a procedural order and objectors do not have an appeal as of right; they must seek leave and meet a high test in order obtain it. However, in Peakhill Capital Inc. v.
On Thursday 9 November, Macfarlanes hosted a webinar which focused on the role of directors and in particular navigating those stresses and strains placed upon them in the uncertainties of the current markets.
The webinar was given by an expert panel comprising of finance partner and head of Macfarlanes’ restructuring and insolvency group, Jat Bains, finance partner and qualified insolvency practitioner, Paul Keddie, and litigation partner, Lois Horne.
The panel discussed the following three principal themes.
On 13 October 2023, the Insolvency Service (IS), acting on behalf of the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, discontinued the disqualification proceedings which it had initiated against five former non-executive directors (NEDs) of Carillion plc, the construction and outsourcing giant that collapsed into liquidation in 2018.
Comme déjà évoqué dans notre article précédent à ce sujet, le concept du transfert d’entreprise constitue l’un des piliers de la réforme du droit de l’insolvabilité en Belgique.
Dans cet article, nous introduisions le concept du transfert d’entreprise sous autorité judiciaire, revu depuis la réforme du 1er septembre 2023.
La présente contribution constitue la deuxième partie du sujet, portant cette fois sur le transfert d’une entreprise qui intervient dans le cadre d’une préparation privée (confidentielle) à la faillite.
Zoals reeds vermeld in ons vorig artikel in deze materie, is het concept van de overdracht van een onderneming één van de pijlers van de hervorming van het insolventierecht in België.
U maakte reeds kennis met het concept van de overdracht van ondernemingen onder gerechtelijk gezag, dat herzien is sinds de hervorming van 1 september 2023.
Deze bijdrage vormt het tweede deel van dit onderwerp, ditmaal over de overdracht van een onderneming in het kader van een "besloten voorbereiding van een faillissement".
As already mentioned in our previous article on this subject, the concept of the transfer of a business is one of the pillars of the reform of insolvency law in Belgium.
In our previous article regarding this subject, we introduced the concept of the transfer of a business under judicial authority, reviewed since the reform as of 1 September 2023.
This contribution constitutes the second part of the subject, and deals with the transfer of a business in the context of a private (confidential) preparation prior to bankruptcy.
Our precedent contribution contained introductory remarks on the reform of insolvency law, which came into force on 1 September 2023. As indicated, this contribution focuses on a key element of this reform.
The revision of the insolvency landscape has not spared the concept of the transfer of business, which is one of its pillars.
The transfer of a business can take place at two stages: as part of a public judicial reorganisation proceeding, but also as part of a silent preparation prior to bankruptcy.