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).

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.

This week, the Ninth Circuit addresses whether text messages can violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s prohibition on “prerecorded voice” messages, and it considers whether debtors who paid statutory fees under an unconstitutionally nonuniform bankruptcy provision are entitled to a refund.

TRIM v. REWARD ZONE USA LLC

2023 has been a remarkable year with the past several months displaying an upward trend for the Business Restructuring + Insolvency Group at Morrison Foerster. We would like to provide our friends and clients with an overview of our current matters, each of which demonstrate our track record of being a go-to firm for complex restructurings across industries and jurisdictions.

Summary

关于最高人民法院审委会专职委员刘贵祥大法官在全国法院金融审判工作会议上发表的题为“关于金融民商事审判工作中的理念、机制和法律适用问题”的讲话（“讲话稿”），我们在上篇及中篇中对“关于进

引言

按照《中华人民共和国企业破产法》（“《企业破产法》”）第三十二条[1]规定，管理人有权起诉请求法院撤销破产企业在一定期间内的个别清偿行为。债权人在面对该类个别清偿撤销诉讼时，时常面临举证困难、法律适用不明确等困境。

我们近期代理某金融机构债权人处理一宗个别清偿纠纷诉讼二审程序。本文将尝试结合这一案件，提出我们对上述法律规定的思考，讨论债权人应对个别清偿撤销诉讼的“困境”与“突围”，并且为债权人提供缓释该类纠纷带来的潜在风险的思路。

一、债权人应对个别清偿撤销纠纷的困境

为充实破产企业偿债资产、维护债权人公平受偿，《企业破产法》赋予管理人针对债务人破产前一定期间内特定行为的撤销权。本文关注的是《企业破产法》第三十二条指向的债务人在破产申请受理前6个月内的个别清偿行为，或称“偏颇性清偿行为”。依照该条规定，撤销该类行为需要满足以下条件：

This week, the Court considers a property owner’s claim to an easement over a maintenance road on federal land, and casts doubt on the longstanding “person aggrieved” standing requirement in bankruptcy appeals.

KIMBALL-GRIFFITH, L.P. v. BRENDA BURMAN, ET AL

The Court rejects a property owner’s claim to an easement over a maintenance road on federal land.

Overview/Executive Summary

In response to the recent collapse of several prominent banking institutions, Morrison Foerster conducted a brief poll to gauge how companies and their employees are faring in the wake of these historic events. Our goal is to understand how this situation has impacted these organizations, including delving into which issues and challenges, if any, will be top of mind for business leaders and their respective organizations in the weeks and months ahead.

Methodology