Introduction
Today, the UK Supreme Court considered for the first time the existence, content and engagement of the so-called “creditor duty”: the alleged duty of a company’s directors to consider, or to act in accordance with, the interests of the company’s creditors when the company becomes insolvent, or when it approaches, or is at real risk of, insolvency.
Two recent cases examine whether, given the impossibility to liquidate a company due to a corporate deadlock, a court can invalidate certain resolutions at the request of one shareholder.
What happens when a shady businessman transfers $1 million from one floundering car dealership to another via the bank account of an innocent immigrant? Will the first dealership’s future chapter 7 trustee be allowed to recover from the naïve newcomer as the “initial transferee” of a fraudulent transfer as per the strict letter of the law? Or will our brave courts of equity exercise their powers to prevent a most grave injustice?
UK judgment is a prompt for landlords to consider all angles to maximise rent recovery in harsh economic conditions
The UK High Court has ruled in in favour of a landlord whose original tenant and guarantor were held liable for the rent accrued on a gym in Leeds despite the subsequent assignee operating under a restructuring plan.
Retired U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert E. Gerber once observed that “issues as to the interplay between environmental law and bankruptcy are among the thorniest on the litigation map.” Difficulties navigating this interplay largely stem from the inherent conflict between the goals of bankruptcy and environmental laws, with the former aimed at providing debtors with a fresh start, while the latter cast a broad net to hold parties (even some innocent parties) responsible for past harm to the environment.
The reforms respond to the needs of small and medium-sized companies, speed up processes and support business recovery
The Spanish Congress has approved (30 June 2022) the Insolvency Law Reform Bill, which transposes the Directive on restructuring and insolvency. A first text was approved in December 2021, but amendments were introduced throughout the first half of 2022 that modified several important points.
A foreign (non-U.S.) company can be dragged unwillingly into a U.S. bankruptcy case if the bankruptcy court has “personal jurisdiction” over the company.
A foreign (non-U.S.) company can be dragged unwillingly into a U.S. bankruptcy case if the bankruptcy court has “personal jurisdiction” over the company.
The Insolvency Service is satisfied that the restructuring plan and moratorium processes are broadly meeting their policy objectives – and that ipso facto clauses are likely to be used more in future