Despite three recent landmark UK restructuring plan decisions, uncertainty remains around the value, if any, a plan company should offer dissenting creditors as the “deliverability price” of a plan.

Actions brought against the BHS directors by the group’s liquidators have resulted in the largest reported award for wrongful trading since the provision’s introduction, but the judgment highlights some unsettled areas of the law relating to directors’ duties.

The key distinction between a fixed and a floating charge is well established as a matter of English law.

A recent chambers decision holding that gross overriding royalties (“GOR”) can be vested off in a reverse vesting order (“RVO”) is on its way up to the Court of Appeal of Alberta (the “ABCA”). The ABCA has granted leave to appeal Invico Diversified Income Limited Partnership v NewGrange Energy Inc, 2024 ABKB 214 (“Invico”).

The Chambers Decision

In the Endoceutics case[1], the Superior Court recently clarified the application of section 32 of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act

Third Circuit Finds Future Royalty Obligations From Sale Transaction Dischargeable in Bankruptcy

The Third Circuit ruled that the obligations are prepetition "contingent and unliquidated" claims that can be discharged in a bankruptcy.

Just over a year ago, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench (“ACKB”) decision in Qualex-Landmark Towers v 12-10 Capital Corp (“Qualex”)[1] extended the application of an environmental regulator’s priority entitlements in bankruptcy and insolvency to civ

The Legal Statement applies areas of insolvency law to digital assets, providing valuable guidance on the approach English courts will take.

The Legal Statement applies areas of insolvency law to digital assets, providing valuable guidance on the approach English courts will take.

On April 12, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important decision in the case of Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., No. 22-1165. Justice Sotomayor, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that “pure omissions are not actionable under Rule 10b-5(b).” In other words, a pure omission (i.e., where a speaker says nothing) cannot support a private claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b–5, even if such an omission could constitute a violation of Item 303 of Regulation S-K (“Item 303”).