In the recent decision Sian Participation v Halimeda (Sian), the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (the Privy Council) held on a BVI appeal that a winding-up petition should not be stayed or dismissed merely because the underlying debt is subject to a generally-worded arbitration agreement.

Like many other strategically important sectors, there has long been a bespoke insolvency regime for the water sector. New legislation has been brought into effect in early 2024 as a first step to bringing the special administration regime for water (the SAR) up to date with the general UK insolvency regime.

Like many other strategically important sectors, there has long been a bespoke insolvency regime for the water sector. New legislation has been brought into effect in January 2024 as a first step to bringing the special administration regime for water (the SAR) up to date with the general UK insolvency regime.

The High Court has, for the first time, sanctioned a restructuring plan exercising the power to cross-class cram down. The court handed down its sanction order but noted that, as the first decision to use cross-class cram down, a reasoned judgment will follow in due course.

On 13 January 2021, the court sanctioned three interconditional restructuring plans ('the restructuring plans') for three subsidiaries of DeepOcean Group Holding BV (together with all of its subsidiaries, 'the DeepOcean Group'):

As widely blogged about, on 26 June 2020 the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (the Act) came into force, introducing both far-reaching wholescale reforms to the UK’s restructuring toolbox as well as temporary measures dealing with COVID-19 impacts on companies. The two most significant temporary measures for companies facing financial difficulties as a result of the COVID 19 pandemic were:

The economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic will leave in its wake a significant increase in commercial chapter 11 filings. Many of these cases will feature extensive litigation involving breach of contract claims, business interruption insurance disputes, and common law causes of action based on novel interpretations of long-standing legal doctrines such as force majeure.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali recently ruled in the Chapter 11 case of Pacific Gas & Electric (“PG&E”) that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) has no jurisdiction to interfere with the ability of a bankrupt power utility company to reject power purchase agreements (“PPAs”).

The Supreme Court this week resolved a long-standing open issue regarding the treatment of trademark license rights in bankruptcy proceedings. The Court ruled in favor of Mission Products, a licensee under a trademark license agreement that had been rejected in the chapter 11 case of Tempnology, the debtor-licensor, determining that the rejection constituted a breach of the agreement but did not rescind it.

Few issues in bankruptcy create as much contention as disputes regarding the right of setoff. This was recently highlighted by a decision in the chapter 11 case of Orexigen Therapeutics in the District of Delaware.

The judicial power of the United States is vested in courts created under Article III of the Constitution. However, Congress created the current bankruptcy court system over 40 years ago pursuant to Article I of the Constitution rather than under Article III.