Bogra is a company that is active within the funeral industry. As a result of serious financial problems, an administrator (bewindvoerder) was appointed on 28 June 2017. On the same date Bogra was declared bankrupt (30 June 2017), the employment agreements of Bogra’s employees were terminated. Funico acquired (part of) Bogra’s assets on 18 July 2017 due to an asset transaction. Effective 19 July 2017, Bogra’s activities were continued by Bogra Uitvaartkisten.
In In re Hungry Horse, LLC, Adversary Proceeding No. 16-11222 (Bankr. D. N.M. September 20, 2017) (“Hungry Horse”), the New Mexico Bankruptcy Court reminded us that many U.S. Supreme Court opinions can be limited in scope and do not necessarily dispose of all potential remedies to an issue.
Crusade against dormant companies: make sure you file your annual accounts on time!
Introduction
On 5 September 2017, the Dutch legislator published an amended bill on pre-insolvency proceedings in the Netherlands1 for consultation purposes.2 The Bill contains a proposal for an amendment to the Dutch Bankruptcy Act (Faillissementswet) which enables a company in financial difficulties to propose a composition outside insolvency proceedings to its creditors and shareholders, to restructure problematic debts.
The recast Insolvency Regulation of 20 May 2015 embodies a further step towards the harmonisation of European Union insolvency law. The main provisions are set to apply to insolvency proceedings as of 26 June 2017.
The key changes relate to a broader scope, the “centre of main interests” (COMI) concept, secondary proceedings, group insolvencies and the introduction of insolvency registers. Overall, the new elements will increase the chance of a positive outcome in complex cross-border insolvencies and offer better cooperation and transparency.
Introduction
On 23 June 2016 the UK population voted for the UK's exit from the European Union (EU). The applicable exit procedure and certain possible legal consequences of Brexit for Insolvency & Restructuring will be discussed below in the form of a Q&A.
In In re NewPage Corporation, et al., Adversary Proceeding No. 13-52429 (Bankr. D. Del. Feb. 13, 2017), a Delaware Bankruptcy Court applied a unique defense to certain preferential transfers targeted by a liquidating trustee. The defense focuses on a commonly overlooked element of a preferential transfer, section 547(b)(5).
Preference 101
State and federal laws provide numerous protections to secured parties to preserve their interests in collateral. As secured parties well know, however, these protections become more and more limited when the collateral is pledged to multiple secured parties. Issues, like priority of interests and liens, become more prevalent when the collateral at issue falls in value and multiple secured parties are fighting to enforce their interests in order to satisfy their debts.
State and federal laws provide numerous protections to secured parties to preserve their interests in collateral. As secured parties well know, however, these protections become more and more limited when the collateral is pledged to multiple secured parties. Issues, like priority of interests and liens, become more prevalent when the collateral at issue falls in value and multiple secured parties are fighting to enforce their interests in order to satisfy their debts.