For background on the Act and the National Security and Investment (NSI) regime, please see our November 2020 Client Alert, August 2021 Client Alert, and

Is the rule in Gibbs justifiable in the context of modern international insolvency laws or is England clinging to an outdated rule simply to keep restructurings here? The rule stems from an 1890 Court of Appeal Case, which holds that only English courts can validate the compromise or discharge of English law governed debt. The rule cuts across the trend of increased cross-border cooperation in insolvency matters – commonly described as the “modified universalist” approach and critics see the rule as a relic of a more Anglo-centric approach to insolvency law.

What do Ukraine, Sri Lanka, and Ghana have in common? They’ve all guaranteed bonds that once traded at a sizeable discount to their sovereign counterparts.

As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine continues, governments around the world are coordinating and responding with increasingly severe sanctions and export controls on Russian entities, institutions, and individuals. Insolvency practitioners first wonder whether sanctioned entities, or entities connected to sanctioned individuals, can enter into an insolvency procedure and, if so, how does the insolvency practitioner accept an appointment and get paid?

There are distinct advantages to investors sitting on the boards of their portfolio companies, not least their ability to look after their investment and work toward maximising their return. The human capital provided by investor directors can be invaluable in driving efficiencies and creating growth opportunities. The interests of investors, investor directors, and the company will generally be aligned in seeking the success of the business.

The National Security Investment Act 2021 (the “Act”) came into effect on 4 January 2022 and introduced a new UK investment screening regime focused on national security risks (the “NSI Regime”). It is similar to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”) regime. The Act is wide reaching; it provides the UK government with the power to review and intervene in transactions that may pose a UK national security risk due to a transfer of control of sensitive entities or assets.

El reconocimiento de un derecho de separación por el atesoramiento abusivo de beneficios supone un mecanismo de protección de la minoría. Su ejercicio, sin embargo, puede resultar perjudicial para la sociedad, que tendrá que abonar al socio saliente el valor de su participación. Por este motivo, siempre se ha planteado la posibilidad de enervar, de algún modo, el ejercicio del derecho. La Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo de 25 de enero se ocupa de un caso de esta naturaleza reconociendo, en un supuesto muy concreto, el carácter abusivo del ejercicio del derecho de separación.  

On 10 March 2022, the UK High Court held the adjourned sanction hearing regarding Smile Telecoms Holdings Limited’s (“Smile”) second proposed restructuring plan. Despite Smile Telecoms’ first restructuring plan being sanctioned by the UK High Court back in March 2021, the African telecommunications company still faced liquidity shortages. This prompted the company to propose a second restructuring plan under Part 26A of the UK Companies Act 2006 (the “Companies Act”). The second restructuring plan would see the Smile Telecoms’ group senior secured lender, 966 CO S.a. r.l.

La CNMV ha publicado un documento con “preguntas y respuestas” que pretende servir de ayuda en la interpretación por las sociedades cotizadas del régimen de operaciones vinculadas tras la reforma introducida por la Ley 5/2021 para la incorporación de la Directiva sobre derechos de los accionistas en las sociedades cotizadas. A continuación, se incluye un resumen de los criterios interpretativos ofrecidos por el organismo supervisor.

Referencias Jurídicas CMS

Artículos de fondo

This week, the Ninth Circuit takes a close look at a sizable antitrust jury award, and explains what constitutes a tax “return” for purposes of bankruptcy law.

OPTRONIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC v. NINGBO SUNNY ELECTRONIC CO. LTD.

The Court held that sufficient evidence supported a jury verdict holding telescope manufacturers liable for antitrust violations.