The High Court recently considered an application by creditors for directions calling upon a liquidator to reconsider advice he had provided in a report to the ODCE and to carry out further and more forensic investigation into the circumstances which led to the liquidation of the company.
Background
syncreon Group Holdings B.V. (the “Company” and together with its subsidiaries, “syncreon”) completed its landmark financial restructuring today. As has been widely reported, syncreon’s reorganization is perhaps the first-ever use of an English scheme to restructure debt issued by a U.S.-based global enterprise. This also appears to be the first time that CCAA recognition of an English scheme has been granted.
The Restructuring
When a company is unable to pay its debts as they fall due, a director’s duties shift from the management of the company for the benefit of the shareholders, to ensuring the company’s creditors are not disadvantaged by the company continuing to trade.
The directors should seek and comply with professional advice from their auditors and solicitors regarding any decision to continue trading for an interim period.
On 11 July the government published draft legislation for the Finance Bill 2020. We set out below details of the key insolvency measures in the proposed legislation. The draft legislation is open for technical consultation until 5 September 2019, but the principles of the legislation are not expected to change.
Overview
The reintroduction of Crown Preference
The Supreme Court has just delivered a judgment confirming the entitlement of a judgment debtor to appoint a receiver by way of equitable execution.
The comprehensive judgment is a useful history lesson in the development and expansion of the right to appoint a receiver by way of equitable execution which derives from the old Judicator (Ireland) Act, 1877.
Background
Judgment was obtained by a bank in February 2011 against two borrowers in the amount of €1,064,747.
The Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated ruling yesterday in the First Circuit case of Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, resolving a circuit split that had developed on “whether [a] debtor‑licensor’s rejection of an [executory trademark licensing agreement] deprives the licensee of its rights to use the trademark.” And it answered that question in the negative; i.e., in favor of licensees.
The below is a quick snapshot of three recent tax-related developments in the insolvency and restructuring sphere.
Farnborough – appointment of a receiver and tax grouping
The below is a quick snapshot of three recent tax-related developments in the insolvency and restructuring sphere.
Farnborough – appointment of a receiver and tax grouping
When it comes to offsets, bankruptcy law provides for two distinct remedies: (1) setoff and (2) recoupment.
Setoff allows a creditor to reduce the amount of prepetition debt it owes a debtor with a corresponding reduction of that creditor’s prepetition claim against the debtor. The remedy of setoff is subject to the automatic stay, as well as various conditions under § 553 of the Bankruptcy Code — including that it does not apply if the debts arise on opposite sides of the date on which the debtor’s case was commenced.
A recent decision from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation, Case No. 12-2652, 2019 WL 1771786 (S.D.N.Y. April 23, 2019) (Cote, J.), has re-examined application of the “securities safe harbor” under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101–1532, to the transferees of “financial institutions” in so-called “conduit transactions,” following the United States Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., 138 S. Ct. 883 (2018).