Occasionally an invoice slips through the net and does not get paid, or payment is delayed due to issues with the goods or services being provided.

Where the debt is for £750 or more, an impatient creditor may serve a statutory demand or a winding up petition if it considers there to be no reason for the delay.

If this happens, deal with the situation immediately as the consequences of failing to do so can be very damaging to the company's reputation and finances; even if it is not ultimately wound up.

In a recent judgment (Durose & Ors v Tagco BV & Ors [2022] EWHC 3000 (Ch)), the Court was asked to decide whether the actions of a private equity investor demonstrated "unfair prejudice". In this insight we cover what steps companies should take in light of the Court's ruling.

In late August 2022, the Spanish Parliament passed the transposition into Spanish law of the Directive (EU) 2019/1023 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of June 20th 2019, on Preventive Restructuring Frameworks. The draft of this new Act was subject to multiple amendments and created great local expectations (also considerable controversy). The text finally enacted in Law 16/2022 introduces major reforms in the insolvency field which we hereby depict.

Introduction of the so-called “Restructuring Plans”

The Spanish Parliament's extraordinary plenary session of August 25, 2022, has passed a law amending the recast Insolvency Act, which amendment will enter into force 20 days after it is published in Spain's Official State Gazette, the "BOE".

This new law, after suffering numerous amendments as a bill, establishes major changes in the area of insolvency, and it incorporates into the Spanish legal system the guidelines established by Directive (EU) 2019/1023 of the European Parliament and of the Council, dated June 20, 2019, on preventive restructuring frameworks.

“[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.

Bankruptcy courts may hear state law disputes “when the parties knowingly and voluntarily consent,” held the U.S. Supreme Court on May 26, 2015. Wellness Int’l Network Ltd. v. Sharif, 2015 WL 2456619, at *3 (May 26, 2015). That consent, moreover, need not be express, reasoned the Court. Id. at *9 (“Nothing in the Constitution requires that consent to adjudication by a bankruptcy court be express.”). Reversing the U.S.