Yesterday, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) published its long-awaited judgment in Heiploeg/FNV. The ECJ rules that a pre-pack under circumstances can fall within the exception as mentioned in Article 5 (1) Directive 2001/23.
Introduction to the pre-pack
Op 6 december 2021 heeft de Rechtbank Overijssel de burgemeester van de gemeente Hardenberg aangesteld tot mede-curator in het faillissement van De Zorgstal. Dit is een interessante ontwikkeling omdat, voor zover de auteurs bekend, een burgemeester niet eerder is aangesteld tot mede-curator in een zorgfaillissement.
Earlier today, the Dutch House of Representatives (de Tweede Kamer) has voted in favour of the draft bill on “court sanctioning private composition to avoid bankruptcy” (de Wet homologatie onderhands akkoord ter voorkoming van faillissement, the WHOA), together with certain amendments.
This is great news: the WHOA is an effective restructuring tool that is likely to become widely used both in local and cross border restructurings. Especially in light of COVID-19, this is a welcome extra tool for enterprises in distress to avoid bankruptcy.
On 5 September 2017, the Dutch legislator published an amended bill on pre-insolvency proceedings in the Netherlands1 for consultation purposes.2 The Bill contains a proposal for an amendment to the Dutch Bankruptcy Act (Faillissementswet) which enables a company in financial difficulties to propose a composition outside insolvency proceedings to its creditors and shareholders, to restructure problematic debts.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLC (PwC) won another victory in the MF Global litigation when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of claims brought by former commodities customers (the “Customers”) of MF Global Inc. (“MFGI”). This holding is important for its clear affirmation of the in pari delicto doctrine and as a visible limitation on claims by parties not in privity.
Compensation to be paid to a bankruptcy estate professional is many times subject to intense dispute. In the case of a bankruptcy trustee, section 326 of the Bankruptcy Code provides for a tiered system of compensation based upon the amount of money distributed by the trustee to parties in interest. However, as demonstrated by the recent decision in In re Virgin Offshore U.S.A., Inc., 2015 Bankr. LEXIS 233 (Bankr. E.D. La. Jan.
On January 7, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued an opinion that may have far reaching effects on cases involving asbestos liability. Companies with potential asbestos liability, and actual and potential asbestos claimants, would be well advised to consider the Court’s opinion.
Imagine: you are a lender that has loaned substantial sums of money to an individual, secured by real property owned by the borrower. After the borrower defaults and negotiations fail, you seek and obtain the appointment of a receiver. But now litigation ensues—about the loan documents, about contract defaults, about interest rates, about foreign law. After a substantial investment of time and money, your trial date draws closer. At some point during this odyssey, your borrower secretly transfers the real property collateral to a newly-created, single-member LLC.
On October 21, 2010, the New York Court of Appeals (the Appeals Court), New York’s highest appellate court, addressed two appeals, and then issued an important ruling regarding the parameters of the affirmative defense of in pari delicto in suits against outside auditors, holding that the doctrines of in pari delicto and imputation are a complete bar to recovery when the corporate wrongdoer’s actions are imputed to the company.
The Doctrines of In Pari Delicto and Imputation