In brief
The UK Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited judgment in relation to the case of BTI 2014 LLC (Appellant) v. Sequana SA and others (Respondents) [2022] UKSC 25, concerning the duty of directors of a company registered under the Companies Act 2006 to consider (and act in accordance with) the interests of the company’s creditors.
Contents
In brief
The UK Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited judgment in relation to the case of BTI 2014 LLC (Appellant) v. Sequana SA and others (Respondents) [2022] UKSC 25, concerning the duty of directors of a company registered under the Companies Act 2006 to consider (and act in accordance with) the interests of the company’s creditors.
Contents
In brief
The UK Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited judgment in relation to the case of BTI 2014 LLC (Appellant) v. Sequana SA and others (Respondents) [2022] UKSC 25, concerning the duty of directors of a company registered under the Companies Act 2006 to consider (and act in accordance with) the interests of the company's creditors.
Contents
In brief
The UK Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited judgment in relation to the case of BTI 2014 LLC (Appellant) v. Sequana SA and others (Respondents) [2022] UKSC 25, concerning the duty of directors of a company registered under the Companies Act 2006 to consider (and act in accordance with) the interests of the company's creditors.
Contents
In brief
The Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act ("Act") received royal assent on 15 December 2021.
The Act extends the scope of powers available to the Insolvency Service to address the issue of directors dissolving companies to avoid paying their liabilities.
In brief
The Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act ("Act") received royal assent on 15 December 2021.
The Act extends the scope of powers available to the Insolvency Service to address the issue of directors dissolving companies to avoid paying their liabilities.
“[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]