Selon la Banque de France, les procédures collectives affectant les moyennes entreprises sont en hausse de 85% sur un an. Cette tendance affecte particulièrement les entreprises de la French Tech pour des start-ups qui n’ayant pas trouvé leur modèle économique, se trouvent confrontées à un mur de dettes.
Selon Paul Chollet, économiste de Crédit Mutuel Arkea 2024 sera "une année noire" avec un record de défaillances d’entreprises en France. Cela fait maintenant 3 ans que les économistes prédisent un ras-de-marrée de défaillances. Cela étant, avec près de 49.000 de défaillances en France sur 12 mois glissants, il y a une tendance à un retour aux chiffres de 2019.
Il est donc indispensable de rappeler que des procédures de prévention (mandat ad hoc et la conciliation) sont là pour traiter les difficultés en amont de la défaillance.
The restructuring of Casino Group, one of France's top 6 retailers, is at the point of reaching a favourable outcome. An agreement is expected at the end of July 2023. The commonalities between the restructuring of Casino and Orpéa are the preservation of secured debt, the conversion of unsecured debt into capital, asset disposals and, of course, a significant injection of new money.
Payment Orders were originally introduced in the CPC as a fast track route for creditors holding a financial instrument, such as a letter of credit or cheque, to obtain judgment against their debtor for what is a simple and indisputable debt. Payment Orders were rarely issued by the onshore UAE courts. In 2018, Cabinet Resolution No 57 of 2018 (the “2018 Cabinet Resolution”) significantly expanded the scope of application of Payment Orders by extending them to all admitted debts rather than simply those arising out of financial instruments only.
Many of the measures of the French Ordinance No. 2020-596 of 20 May 2020, adapting pre-insolvency and insolvency French rules in response to the consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic, were due to expire on 31 December 2020.
The French law on Acceleration and Simplification of Public Action n°2020-1525 of 7 December 2020 now extends them until December 31, 2021.
The extended measures are as follows:
“[C]ourts may account for hypothetical preference actions within a hypothetical [C]hapter 7 liquidation” to hold a defendant bank (“Bank”) liable for a payment it received within 90 days of a debtor’s bankruptcy, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 7, 2017.In re Tenderloin Health, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4008, *4 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017).
The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.
A Chapter 11 debtor “cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure,” held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 4, 2016. In re New Investments Inc., 2016 WL 6543520, *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) (2-1).
While a recent federal bankruptcy court ruling provides some clarity as to how midstream gathering agreements may be treated in Chapter 11 cases involving oil and gas exploration and production companies (“E&Ps”), there are still many questions that remain. This Alert analyzes and answers 10 important questions raised by the In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation decision of March 8, 2016.[1]
An asset purchaser’s payments into segregated accounts for the benefit of general unsecured creditors and professionals employed by the debtor (i.e., the seller) and its creditors’ committee, made in connection with the purchase of all of the debtor’s assets, are not property of the debtor’s estate or available for distribution to creditors according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — even when some of the segregated accounts were listed as consideration in the governing asset purchase agreement. ICL Holding Company, Inc., et al. v.