Cram-across: Sino-Ocean Restructuring Plan Makes Waves

The evolution of the English RP continues to push the jurisdictional envelope.

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.

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

The UK water industry is rarely out of the headlines, whether for operational performance issues or reports of perpetual financial distress. It may therefore be more than a coincidence that the UK government has chosen now to introduce new rules for the special administration regime (SAR) that applies to water companies.

On December 5, 2022, in In re Global Cord Blood Corp., 2022 WL 17478530 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2022) (“Global Cord”), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) denied recognition of a proceeding pending in the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands (the “Cayman Proceeding” and the court, the “Cayman Court”) because it was more like a corporate governance and fraud remediation effort than a collective proceeding for the purpose of dealing with reorganization or liquidation, as Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code requires.