On 6 April 2017, together with the new Insolvency Rules (England and Wales) 2016, the Investment Bank (Amendment of Definition) and Special Administration (Amendment) Regulations 2017 (the “Regulations”) will come into force.
These regulations follow an independent review of the special administration regime, undertaken by Peter Bloxham during 2013, assessing the success of the special administration regime and making recommendations of possible changes that may improve the operation and robustness of the regime.
The Southern District of New York upheld a very closely watched decision of recent years affecting bankruptcies in the oil and gas industry.
Even at first blush, it is apparent that arbitration and insolvency make strange bedfellows.
The Ministry of Justice has recently published its review of the introduction of Employment Tribunal (‘ET’) fees. The fees were first introduced 2013 and many groups have raised concerns that they are a potentially serious barrier to bringing claims in the ET, particularly for less well off workers and those who have just lost their jobs.
Case law on wrongful trading has developed significantly over the past two years, with the cases of Ralls Buildersand Brooksincreasing judicial consideration of the conduct of directors in the period preceding an insolvency.
Restructuring lawyers and distressed companies alike were granted welcome relief by the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals when it overturned the decision of the District Court in the case of Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v Education Management Finance Corp.[1]
Suppose you were a German bank lending to a Spanish debtor under a loan agreement governed by German law. Once your Spanish debtor stops paying, the bank would have to obtain a German legal judgment and would then have to enforce it in Spain. Any measure to secure the debtor's assets in the meantime, is typically subject to the jurisdiction where the asset is located, or subject to lengthy recognition proceedings. Having to resort to local law measures usually puts foreign creditors in a worse-off position than local ones.
Fraudulent debtors are trying to use a disputable interpretation of Article 37, para 4 of the Special Pledges Act on the outcome of enforcement over a special pledge against the rights of secured mortgage creditors.
The Bulgarian legislator is notorious for leaving gaps in enacted legislation. Often such legal gaps combined with inexperience, or even worse – corruption of judges, lead to questionable judgments being handed down. Several of these judgments have put mortgage creditors at risk of losing their collateral in the past year.
In December 2013, the Bank of Slovenia adopted exceptional measures resulting in the annulment of financial instruments held by shareholders and subordinated bondholders for the purpose of burden-sharing in rescuing five Slovenian banks.1 In its decision of 19 July 2016, the European Court of Justice confirmed that such burden-sharing is not contrary to EU law; however, the Slovenian public remains divided.
On 16 December 2016 an act amending the insolvency laws applicable to financial derivatives transactions passed the Bundesrat (the second chamber of the German legislature). The new law was finalised only six months after the German Federal Court of Justice passed its landmark judgment that held a netting provision based on the German Master Agreement for Financial Derivatives Transactions to be partially ineffective in the event of insolvency.