This note aims to provide brief and practical answers to common questions on the law of assignment in English law finance transactions.

1. Are all notified assignments legal assignments?

Key Takeaways

Incorporating the principles contained in EU insolvency directives, the new Italian Insolvency Code affirms the goal of resolving crises in the least traumatic way possible for the business. This represents a fundamental innovation of the underlying philosophy of Italian insolvency law and the remedies envisaged for companies in distress so that they may successfully restructure their outstanding exposure. Below, we provide a general overview of the Insolvency Code and its key remedies.

The Insolvency Code in brief

The Corporate Enforcement Authority recently published its guidance note on EU Directive 2019/1023 known as the "Preventive Restructuring Directive", which you will find here (Information Note).

The scheme offers a credible implementation alternative, but no “one size fits all” solution exists for German credits.

German credits in sectors such as real estate, automotive, and energy face a worsening macro backdrop. At the same time, the available toolkit for financial restructurings has expanded, offering multiple options without the need for recourse to insolvency proceedings.

Judicial comments cast doubt on the ability to compromise US law-governed debt effectively based on Chapter 15 recognition alone.

In a new ruling, the UK Supreme Court concluded that the rule applies only when a company is "insolvent or bordering on insolvency".

On 5 October 2022, the UK Supreme Court handed down judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana SA and others (Sequana)1. The case required the court to reconcile differing judicial pronouncements of the "creditors' interest rule" (the Rule) and consider the following questions:

Background

On 5 October 2022, the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25 concerning the trigger point at which directors must have regard to the interests of creditors pursuant to s.172(3) of the Companies Act 2006 (the "creditors' interests duty").

The court's decision in In re Imerys Talc America, Inc. clarifies the appointment standard for future claimants representatives in the Third Circuit under Section 524(g) of the US Bankruptcy Code.

In a precedential decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the appointment of James L. Patton, Jr. as the legal representative for future talc claimants (FCR) by the bankruptcy court in the Imerys Talc America chapter 11 cases.1

Judicial comments cast doubt on the ability to compromise US law-governed debt effectively based on Chapter 15 recognition alone.