Judges of Barcelona unify principles on certain points of insolvency law
International case law
European jurisprudence on universal and territorial procedures
Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of April 18, 2024 (AIR BERLIN case)
The Royal Court has recently handed down the final decision in the matter of Eagle Holdings Limited (in compulsory liquidation).[1] In this decision, the Royal Court of Guernsey provided guidance and assistance to the joint liquidators regarding a distribution of surplus funds.
The commercial judges of Madrid publish a guidefor the appointment of an expert on insolvency pre-pack
Public disclosure not required of appointment of expert in restructuring in the context of a pre-insolvency notice
Decision by Pontevedra Commercial Court No 3 on November 16, 2022
In the context of a pre-insolvency notice made on a confidential basis in which the debtor requests appointment of the expert in restructuring, Pontevedra Commercial Court took the view that the appointment does not have to be sent to the Public Insolvency Register to publicly disclose their identity.
No se exige publicidad del nombramiento del experto en reestructuración en el marco de una comunicación de negociaciones de carácter reservado
Auto del Juzgado de lo Mercantil núm. 3 de Pontevedra, de 16 de noviembre de 2022
Los jueces de lo mercantil de Madrid publican una guía para el nombramiento de experto en pre-pack concursal
Introduction
Meetings of creditors and shareholders
Reporting delinquent officers
Declaration of solvency
Disclaiming onerous property
Comment
Introduction
The UK Supreme Court has recently delivered a landmark decision in the case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25. The decision is of great importance as the Supreme Court considered in detail whether the trigger for the directors’ duty to consider creditors’ interest is merely a real risk, as opposed to a probability of or close proximity to, insolvency.
Background
簡介
英國最高法院最近在BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25一案中頒下了重要裁決，其重要之處在於最高法院深入探討了董事考慮債權人權益的責任，是只需出現真正的無力償債風險便已觸發，還是在相當可能或瀕臨無力償債時才觸發。
背景
本案的第二及第三答辯人為AWA公司（「該公司」）的董事。於2009年5月，他們安排該公司向該公司唯一股東（「第一答辯人」）派發1.35億歐元的股息（「該股息」），以抵銷第一答辯人結欠該公司的債務。該公司在支付該股息時，其資產負債表及現金流均處於具償債能力的狀況。然而，該公司有一項與污染相關而金額未定的長期或然負債，導致該公司產生未來可能無力償債的真正風險。