The overwhelming majority of my practice has involved larger, complex Chapter 11 cases and out-of-court restructurings, and representing debtors, Chapter 11 trustees, committees or creditors.
When Subchapter V came to be in 2019 under the Small Business Reorganization Act, I honestly did not think that I would have the opportunity to participate in those types of cases due to the debt limitations imposed by statute.
In Short
The Background: On November 15, 2023, the Temporary Fast-Track Liquidation Transparency Act (Tijdelijke Wet Transparantie Turboliquidatie) (the "Act") came into force in the Netherlands, temporarily changing certain statutory provisions in the Dutch Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek), the Dutch Bankruptcy Act (Faillissementswet), and the Dutch Economic Offenses Act (Wet op de economische delicten).
A "double-dip" structure is considered a way to allow some creditors to have multiple claims against key obligors arising out of the same underlying transactions. These additional claims could improve their position relative to other creditors in a bankruptcy or liquidation.
The overwhelming majority of my practice has involved larger, complex Chapter 11 cases and out-of-court restructurings, representing debtors, Chapter 11 trustees, committees, or creditors. However, with the expansion during Covid of the Subchapter V debt limit to $7.5 million, I have found myself participating in multiple Subchapter V cases as counsel to creditors. I discovered quickly that habits developed in larger Chapter 11 cases do not necessarily translate to Subchapter V.
In a recent decision that will add some welcomed clarity to the imposition of Part A1 moratoriums over companies which have been presented with a winding-up petition, the High Court has reflected on the requirements of section A4 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”) and confirmed the test that must be satisfied in order for it to make such an order.
The case ofLiberty Commodities Ltd v Citibank NA London & Ors [2023] EWHC 2020 (Ch) provides a helpful reminder of the principles that the court will adopt when dealing with a winding up petition – particularly where there are supporting creditors.
Making an out of hours qualifying floating charge holder (“QFCH”) appointment can be problematic due to the procedural requirements set out in Rule 3.20 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (the “Rules”).
A thorny question facing a company when considering a Restructuring Plan is how to deal with HMRC particularly following HMRC’s opposition to recent plans.
Creditors now have some assistance in these deliberations thanks toguidance published by HMRC setting out how they will approach discussions with companies considering a Restructuring Plan.
The answer to that question and with a huge sigh of relief is thankfully not, following the Supreme Court finding that an administrator of a company appointed under the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA 1986”) is not an “officer” of the company within the meaning of section 194(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (“TULRCA”).
In Short:
The Situation: After the nationalization of the Dutch SNS banking and insurance group, the Dutch Minister of Finance offered zero compensation to expropriated bondholders.
The Result: Ten years after the nationalization, the Dutch Supreme Court confirmed compensation awards totaling approximately €1 billion including accrued interest.
Looking Ahead: The SNS case provides some interesting lessons on where those seeking compensation in the context of bank bailouts and resolutions may head.