The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has decisively redrawn the boundaries between arbitration agreements and insolvency proceedings in the case of Sian Participation Corp (In Liquidation) v Halimeda International Ltd.[1]

Insolvenzanträge von namhaften Projektentwicklern und Immobiliengesellschaften stellen die betroffenen Unternehmen und ihre Gläubiger vor große Herausforderungen und setzen die gesamte Immobilienbranche unter Druck. Gleichzeitig gewinnen alternative Restrukturierungsmethoden, die außerhalb oder bereits im Vorfeld eines formalen Insolvenzverfahrens stattfinden, zunehmend an Bedeutung.

Vor diesem Hintergrund fällt auch vermehrt das Stichwort “StaRUG“, wenn es um die Restrukturierung von immobilienhaltenden Gesellschaften geht.

In Bolwell & Anor v NWC Finance Pty Ltd & Ors [2024] VSC 30, the Supreme Court of Victoria clarified that a lawyer will not be a "controller" of property within the meaning of section 9 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) simply because it was retained to act for a mortgagee exercising their power of sale.

This judgment provides comfort to lawyers as it confirms that they will not assume the obligations of a "controller" under the Act solely by reason of them acting in connection with the sale of real property in an insolvency context.

The England and Wales Court of Appeal recently handed down its first judgment relating to a restructuring plan under Part 26A of the UK Companies Act 2006: Re AGPS Bondco Plc [2024] EWCA Civ 24. Restructuring plans were a 2020 innovation in UK insolvency law, as described in our earlier alert.

In a welcome clarification for administrators, the UK Supreme Court in the recent case of R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court[1], held that an administrator appointed under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) is not an “officer” of the company for the purposes of section 194(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA).

On 19 July 2023, the parliament of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Luxembourg) passed bill no. 6539A into law (the New Insolvency Law), marking a significant milestone in the movement to modernise and enhance the competitiveness of Luxembourg’s insolvency framework. The bill has been under discussion for a number of years and aims to curtail the use of bankruptcy as an insolvency solution in favour of the preemptive preservation or reorganisation of financially distressed companies.

In this client alert, we set out the key findings by the Court of Appeal in Darty Holdings SAS v Geoffrey Carton-Kelly [2023] EWCA Civ 1135, which considers an appeal against the High Court decision that a repayment by Comet Group plc (“Comet”) of £115 million of unsecured intra-group debt to Kesa International Ltd (“KIL”) was a preference under section 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”).

Background to the Case

Whilst commonplace in the U.S., uptier transactions in which a borrower teams up with a subset of creditors to issue new “super priority” debt by amending or exchanging existing debt documents, have not been widely used in Europe.

However, with increasing macro economic pressures and financial market instability, we may see more European borrowers taking advantage of flexibility in cov-lite debt documentation to implement liability management transactions as an alternative to, or even as part of, more formal restructurings.

In einer aktuellen Entscheidung hat das BAG festgestellt, dass die Vermutungswirkung des § 125 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 InsO auch dann eingreift, wenn bis zu einem anvisierten Stilllegungszeitpunkt noch viel Zeit vergeht und für ein Unternehmen in der Zwischenzeit – anders als prognostiziert – doch ein Erwerber gefunden wird (BAG, Urteil vom 17. August 2023 – 6 AZR 56/23, PM).

The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that there was no actionable infringement where an uncompleted building sold under the authority of a bankruptcy court was later completed. Cornice & Rose International, LLC v. Four Keys, LLC et al., Case No. 22-1976 (8th Cir. Aug. 11, 2023) (Loken, Shepard, Kelly, JJ.) (per curiam). The Court explained that the architectural copyright claims were precluded by the bankruptcy court’s order approving the sale.