The UK Supreme Court handed down its decision in BTI v Sequana on 5 October 2022, unanimously dismissing the appeal from the 2019 Court of Appeal decision and confirming how directors duties ought to be applied when a company is in the zone of insolvency. Although decisions of the UK Supreme Court are not binding upon the jurisdictions in which Ogier practises law, it will nevertheless be highly persuasive and influence the approach taken in the offshore jurisdictions that Ogier advises upon.
Energy prices have soared over the last few months. Although this evolution has impacted all economic operators, energy-intensive companies are particularly affected. The Belgian legislator has therefore introduced a set of protection measures, including amongst others a so-called “temporary moratorium”. This moratorium provides amongst others protection against bankruptcy and judicial dissolution as well as against attachments on movable assets for energy debts.
Sinds 1 januari 2021 zijn de Europese insolventieverordening en Brussel Ibis Verordening niet langer van toepassing op het Verenigd Koninkrijk. Bovendien voorziet de handels- en samenwerkingsovereenkomst tussen de EU en het VK niet in een specifiek erkennings- of tenuitvoerleggingsmechanisme met betrekking tot grensoverschrijdende insolventie- en herstructureringsprocedures na Brexit. De vraag rijst dus of en onder welke voorwaarden Belgische rechtbanken Engelse schemes of arrangement en restructuring plans zullen erkennen na Brexit.
Since 1 January 2021, the European Insolvency Regulation and the Brussels I Recast Regulation no longer apply to the United Kingdom. In addition, the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement does not provide any specific recognition or enforcement mechanism in relation to cross-border insolvency and restructuring proceedings following Brexit. The question thus arises if and under which conditions Belgian courts will continue to recognise UK schemes of arrangement and restructuring plans post Brexit.
Legal claims can only be brought within the applicable limitation period prescribed by the Limitation Act (1996 Revision). A defendant to any claim that is time-barred has a complete defence. Prior to the recent decision ofRitchie Capital Management LLC et al (Ritchie) v Lancelot Investors Fund Ltd (Lancelot) and General Electric Company (GE), it had been generally understood that the Cayman approach to claims against companies in liquidation would follow the English position on the issue of limitation.
In Shameeka Ien v. TransCare Corp., et al. (In re TransCareCorp.), Case No. 16-10407, Adv. P. No. 16-01033 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2020) [D.I. 157], the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently refused to dismiss WARN Act claims against Patriarch Partners, LLC, private equity firm (“PE Firm“), and its owner, Lynn Tilton (“PE Owner“), resulting from the staggered chapter 7 bankruptcies of several portfolio companies, TransCare Corporation and its affiliates (collectively, the “Debtors“).
Joining three other bankruptcy courts, Judge Thuma of the District of New Mexico recently held that the rules issued by the Small Business Administration (“SBA“) that restrict bankrupt entities from participating in the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP“) violated the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, H.R. 748, P.L. 115-136 (the “CARES Act”), as well as section 525(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.
The Southern District of New York recently reminded us in In re Firestar Diamond, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-10509 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. April 22, 2019) (SHL) [Dkt. No. 1482] that equitable principles in bankruptcy often do not match those outside of bankruptcy. Indeed, bankruptcy decisions often place emphasis on equality of treatment amongst all creditors and are less concerned with inequities to individual creditors.