Cram-across: Sino-Ocean Restructuring Plan Makes Waves
The evolution of the English RP continues to push the jurisdictional envelope.
This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Forex Capital Trading Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Invesus Group Limited [2024] NSWSC 867). Justice Ball determined that admission of a proof of debt by a liquidator was not akin to a judgment or settlement, and that such an admission did not create a new liability of the company.
Despite three recent landmark UK restructuring plan decisions, uncertainty remains around the value, if any, a plan company should offer dissenting creditors as the “deliverability price” of a plan.
Actions brought against the BHS directors by the group’s liquidators have resulted in the largest reported award for wrongful trading since the provision’s introduction, but the judgment highlights some unsettled areas of the law relating to directors’ duties.
The key distinction between a fixed and a floating charge is well established as a matter of English law.
In a recent decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (In the matter of Pacific Plumbing Group Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2024] NSWSC 525), Justice Black determined that a payment made by a third party was not an unfair preference because the payment did not diminish assets available to creditors.
Key Takeaways
The Legal Statement applies areas of insolvency law to digital assets, providing valuable guidance on the approach English courts will take.
The Legal Statement applies areas of insolvency law to digital assets, providing valuable guidance on the approach English courts will take.
Ever since unpaid taxes due to HMRC were “crammed down” pursuant to a restructuring plan that it voted against but did not actively oppose in Houst,1 HMRC has challenged restructuring plans and asserted its interests more aggressively, causing the failure of restructuring plans inNasmyth
The new Spanish Bankruptcy Law in September 2022 (TRLC)1 ushered in perhaps the most radical changes to the domestic restructuring market in any EU Member State that has so far implemented the EU Directive on Preventive Restructuring.2 For the first time, following satisfaction of certain conditions, the disenfranchisemen