The Part 26A Restructuring Plans (the "Plans") proposed by each of Virgin Active Holdings, Virgin Active Limited and Virgin Active Health Clubs Limited (the "Plan Companies") have been sanctioned by the court. This decision has been eagerly anticipated by the restructuring and insolvency market, struggling tenants and the beleaguered landlord community.
On 17 October 2020 the coronavirus amendments1 came into effect after being signed by the President of Ukraine. The amendments temporarily change the Code on Bankruptcy Proceedings to protect Ukrainian businesses and mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
With effect from 17 October 2020, throughout the quarantine period and 90 days thereafter, the following changes will apply to the bankruptcy process:
On 17 October 2020 the coronavirus amendments1 came into effect after being signed by the President of Ukraine. The amendments temporarily change the Code on Bankruptcy Proceedings to protect Ukrainian businesses and mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
With effect from 17 October 2020, throughout the quarantine period and 90 days thereafter, the following changes will apply to the bankruptcy process:
On 19 June 2020, the Ukrainian Parliament adopted law (draft law No. 2284) aimed at introducing sweeping new changes to regulation of financial instruments (the Law). The Law has also paved the way for a wide range of new financial instruments such as derivatives, green bonds, loan notes, and other structured finance products.
On 19 June 2020, the Ukrainian Parliament adopted law (draft law No. 2284) aimed at introducing sweeping new changes to regulation of financial instruments (the Law). The Law has also paved the way for a wide range of new financial instruments such as derivatives, green bonds, loan notes, and other structured finance products.
Key points
Where the underlying liability on which a bankruptcy order is made is subsequently set aside, the correct remedy is rescission under s.375(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986.
Annulment under s.282(1)(a) is the appropriate remedy when, on grounds existing at the time of making the bankruptcy order, the order ought not to have been made.
The facts
Key point
In certain circumstances the court will look to parallel statutory provisions where existing applicable statute does not accommodate the situation, as long as the latter is not offended, expanded or altered by doing so.
The facts
This application for directions was brought by the administrators of Lehman Brothers Europe Ltd (the “Company”) on:
Key Points
- Statutory powers are to be exercised in accordance with a company’s articles of association
- The Duomatic principle cannot simply be used as a bandage to cure a company’s procedural errors
The Facts
This appeal considered whether the sole director of a company, whose articles required two directors for its board meeting to be quorate, could validly appoint administrators under paragraph 22 Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
Key points
- The dismissal of the appellant’s previous application for an annulment of a bankruptcy order was a serious procedural irregularity
- A court may annul a bankruptcy order under s 282 IA 1986 if it is satisfied that the order ought not to have been made based on grounds existing at the time the order was made
- In relation to appeals made pursuant to s 375 IA 1986 to review or rescind the decision of a lower court, the court may consider fresh material.
The facts
Key points
- A practical approach was adopted by the court in respect of deadlines for submitting administration expense claims that were otherwise holding up the making of distributions to unsecured creditors.
- In the absence of a suitable statutory mechanism, the court allowed for a cut-off date by which expense claims must be submitted.
The administrators of 18 of the Nortel companies applied to court for directions on how to deal with potential claims for administration expenses.