La Cour d'appel de Luxembourg décide que le jugement de clôture de faillite pour insuffisance d'actifs ne met pas un terme aux opérations de faillite, mais en suspend les opérations.
La survie d'une société au terme des opérations de faillite diffère selon l'actif récupéré par le curateur.
Les sociétés commerciales dont les opérations sont clôturées pour insuffisance d'actif restent inscrites au registre de commerce.
Legislation implementing the EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive ("BRRD") in Netherlands law and facilitating the application of the EU Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation ("SRM Regulation") was approved by the Upper Chamber of the Netherlands parliament on 10 November 2015 and is expected to enter into force before the end of this year. The new law – the "European Framework for the Recovery and Resolution of Credit Institutions and Investment Firms Implementation Act" – will be referred to below as the "Implementation Act".
charlesrussellspeechlys.com Charles Russell Speechlys LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales, registered number OC311850, and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Charles Russell Speechlys LLP is also licensed by the Qatar Financial Centre Authority in respect of its branch office in Doha. Any reference to a partner in relation to Charles Russell Speechlys LLP is to a member of Charles Russell Speechlys LLP or an employee with equivalent standing and qualifications.
From 1 November 2015, additional marketing and disclosure requirements will have to be satisfied by administrators completing pre-packaged sales.
BACKGROUND
The revised Statement of Insolvency Practice 16 (SIP 16) comes into force on 1 November 2015.
The number of companies declared bankrupt in Luxembourg has increased tremendously since 2009, reaching a record number of 1,026 in 2012. According to the Luxembourg authorities, this situation is mainly due to the current legislation, which is obsolete and no longer suited to modern financial difficulties.
In 2009, the Luxembourg government decided that the creation of appropriate tools for companies in financial distress was extremely important, especially in the post-crisis period, and decided to tackle this subject.
RE: BPE SOLICITORS & ANOTHER V GABRIEL [2015] UKSC 39
The Supreme Court considered whether a trustee in bankruptcy who was considering adopting proceedings and lodging an appeal should be personally liable for historic adverse costs which had been awarded against the bankrupt prior to the commencement of the bankruptcy.
A Trustee in Bankruptcy’s liability for litigation costs
Stevensdrake Ltd v Stephen Hunt & Others [2015] EWHC 1527 (Ch)
Introduction
The High Court’s recent judgment in Stevensdrake Ltd -v- Stephen Hunt & Others highlights the need for Insolvency Practitioners to make sure that they carefully review conditional fee arrangements before entering into them and understand the potential contractual ramifications which may give rise to personal liability.
Background
Introduction
The recent Supreme Court decision in Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others v Nazir and others has provided office holders with greater (but not final) clarity on the operation of the ‘illegality defence’.
Many readers will be familiar with the concept of the illegality defence, otherwise referred to by the maxim “ex turpi causa non oritur actio”. It is a rule of law which provides that a claimant cannot rely on its own wrongdoing to found a claim against another party.
RE: HARVEST FINANCE LTD; JACKSON & ANOTHER V CANNONS LAW PRACTICE LLP & OTHERS [2014]
This case concerns the provision of documentation under s236 IA 1986. The documentation requested by the liquidators was extensive and the Respondents wished to claim their time costs (£40,381) of providing the same. The Court held that whilst it was within the Court’s jurisdiction to make an order for costs against the insolvent estate, it was not minded to do so in this case.
The Facts