Cram-across: Sino-Ocean Restructuring Plan Makes Waves

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

In a judgment issued yesterday (Francis v Gross [2024] NZCA 528), the Court of Appeal unanimously overturned the controversial High Court decision in Francis v Gross [2023] NZHC 1107 and held that purchasers of partly constructed modular buildings (pods) did not have equitable liens (at all, and especially not in priority to secured creditors) over those pods.

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 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.

The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Sequana¹leaves many unanswered questions, and finding a common thread between the four quite separate judgments has proved challenging for practitioners and directors alike. The recent decision in Hunt v.

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.

This morning, after much anticipation, the Supreme Court has released its judgment in Yan v Mainzeal Property Construction Limited (in liq) [2023] NZSC 113, largely upholding the Court of Appeal's decision, and awarding damages of $39.8m against the directors collectively, with specified limits for certain directors. The decision signals that a strong emphasis on 'creditor protection' is now embedded in New Zealand company law.