The Court of Cassation has considered whether company insolvency proceedings may be extended to a managing director and shareholder who has made payments to himself from the company's bank account.
Background
Introduction
Today, the UK Supreme Court considered for the first time the existence, content and engagement of the so-called “creditor duty”: the alleged duty of a company’s directors to consider, or to act in accordance with, the interests of the company’s creditors when the company becomes insolvent, or when it approaches, or is at real risk of, insolvency.
On 16 September 2021, ordinance 2021-1193 implemented the European Directive on preventive restructuring frameworks into French law. The Ordinance applies to proceedings opened from 1 October 2021.
Key features
Background
The crisis exit treatment procedure has been introduced to provide a temporary judicial procedure for debtors encountering difficulties related to the pandemic and the financing of their activities. This excludes debtors that are structurally in distress.
The procedure enables debtors to adopt a repayment plan within a three-month period to resolve the company's financial difficulties. The procedure is subject to the rules governing judicial reorganisation proceedings with certain adaptations and exclusions.
On 1 October, Ordinance 2021-1193 introduced changes to the 'accelerated safeguard' procedure making this the 'preventive restructuring framework' as required by the 2019 Directive.
Certain conditions for the opening of an accelerated safeguard procedure have been retained with some modifications:
The High Court in London gave judgment on Friday, 3 July 2020 on the relative ranking of over $10 billion of subordinated liabilities in the administrations of two entities in the Lehman Brothers group.
The recent decisions in Re MF Global UK Ltd and Re Omni Trustees Ltd give conflicting views as to whether section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 has extra-territorial effect. In this article, we look at the reasoning in the two judgments and discuss a possible further argument for extra-territorial effect.
The conflicting rulings on section 236