Fulltext Search

In a recent decision in the high value bankruptcy of Pramod Mittal (Mr Mittal), the Chancery division considered the rules on service of insolvency applications. The decision underlines the importance of adhering to service rules and giving as much notice as possible of insolvency applications.

Artemis Amalia Metaxa, Chrysostomides Advocates & Legal Consultants

This is an extract from the 2023 edition of GRR's Europe, Middle East and Africa Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.

This is an Insight article, written by a selected partner as part of GRR's co-published content. Read more on Insight

In summary

Mark Fine, Aymen Mahmoud and Sunay Radia, McDermott Will & Emery

This is an extract from the 2023 edition of GRR's Europe, Middle East and Africa Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.

Luc Defferrard and Tervel Stoyanov, Walder Wyss Ltd

This is an extract from the 2023 edition of GRR's Europe, Middle East and Africa Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.

Alexandros Kontogeorgiou and Georgia Papathanasiou, Kontogeorgiou Bakopanou & Associates Law Firm

This is an extract from the 2023 edition of GRR's Europe, Middle East and Africa Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.

Céline Domenget Morin and Loris Julia, Goodwin Procter LLP

This is an extract from the 2023 edition of GRR's Europe, Middle East and Africa Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.

In 2015, Justice Wilson-Siegel approved a new form of vesting order, referred to as the "reverse vesting order" (or RVO) as part of the restructuring in Plasco Energy (Re). An RVO is a court order that transfers unwanted assets and liabilities out of a debtor company into a (oftentimes newly incorporated) affiliated company, referred to as "ResidualCo." The debtor company is left holding only the assets and liabilities the purchaser wants to acquire.

In a recent judgment (Durose & Ors v Tagco BV & Ors [2022] EWHC 3000 (Ch)), the Court was asked to decide whether the actions of a private equity investor demonstrated "unfair prejudice". In this insight we cover what steps companies should take in light of the Court's ruling.