In case you have just returned from Outer Space- the UK Government has announced that it is holding a referendum on 23 June 2016 on the question:
“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?”
In the meantime, whilst the UK decides whether to Brexit or not, the EU Commission is taking a “business as usual” stance.
The UK’s EU Referendum on membership is looming on the horizon – What are the legal implications of a so-called “Brexit” for restructuring and insolvency professionals?
The EU Referendum Act 2015 obtained Royal Assent on 17 December 2015 and provides for the following question to be put forward for voting in a referendum in the UK until the end of 2017: “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?”
On January 15, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the “Third Circuit”) held in In re Trump Entertainment Resorts that section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code permits a debtor to reject an expired collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”).
Following on from our recent blog on ‘How the UK General Election Might Influence the Recast Insolvency Regulation’ and whether the UK will still be part of the EU in 2017 when it comes into force, we consider the ‘hokey cokey’ of the upcoming EU referendum.
On May 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the “Third Circuit”) affirmed the order of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. CIT Group/Business Credit Inc. (In re Jevic Holding Corp.) approving a settlement and dismissal of a chapter 11 case by way of a “structured dismissal.” A structured dismissal is, simply, the dismissal of the bankruptcy case preceded by other orders, such as an order approving a settlement or granting releases, which survive dismissal of the case.
On May 4, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the order of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit dismissing the appeal of chapter 13 debtor Luis Bullard for lack of jurisdiction.1 The Court held that the order of the Bankruptcy Court denying confirmation of Bullard’s proposed chapter 13 plan was not a final order from which Bullard could immediately appeal as of right.2 The Court reasoned that, while confirmation of a plan can be said to fix the rights and obligations of the parties in a way that alters the status quo, d
In a battle over proper venue for the chapter 11 cases of In re Caesars Entertainment Operating Company, Inc.
The European Advocate General has today given his opinion in the “Woolworths case” (and two other cases) on the meaning of “establishment” for the purposes of determining when the duty to consult appropriate representatives is triggered under the European Collective Redundancies Directive (the Directive).
On October 29, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissing as equitably moot appeals filed by three individuals (the “Appellants”) in the chapter 11 case of In re BGI Inc. f/k/a Borders Group, Inc.
On September 30, 2014, in In re SemCrude, L.P.,1 the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, affirming the Bankruptcy Court’s decision, held that direct partnership distributions by debtor SemGroup, L.P. (the “Debtor”) and indirect partnership distributions by its general partner, SemGroup G.P., L.L.C., to certain limited and general partners could not be avoided as constructive fraudulent transfers.