In our practice, we have found that the most common reason for distressed companies to initiate reorganisation measures is a severe liquidity squeeze.

Driven by regulation, banks are increasingly reluctant to grant senior bridge financings, leading companies to resort to trade credits of major suppliers, such as deferrals or generous payment agreements. But these trade creditors are often unaware of significant third-party liability risks.

Shareholders of Austrian limited liability companies ("GmbH") often stipulate the right to purchase the shares of co-shareholders in certain events. These "share purchase rights" (Aufgriffsrechte) entitle the remaining shareholders to acquire the share of a shareholder when a contractually defined event (Aufgriffsfälle), like insolvency or the death of a shareholder, occurs. Often these rights are laid down in articles of association or a separate shareholders' agreement (Syndikatsvertrag). They are generally qualified as option rights.

After a delay of more than a year, an Act on Preventive Restructuring (the "Act") implementing the EU directive on preventive restructuring frameworks finally became effective in the Czech Republic on 23 September 2023. The long-awaited Act introduced a brand-new legal tool enabling viable enterprises in temporary financial distress to achieve restructuring outside insolvency proceedings. It is a voluntary and flexible process requiring cooperation with creditors, but not necessarily with all of them.

Who can use it?

Regulations on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) are becoming increasingly influential, especially in M&A transactions. It is essential to consider how these regulations will affect foreign creditors, particularly those from non-EU countries. The Slovak FDI Act will have numerous implications for financing and security arrangements.

Security package

There have been many reported cases in the bankruptcies of Mr and Mrs Brake (the “Brakes”) including the recent case of Patley Wood Farm LLP v Kicks [2023] EWCA Civ 901 where the Court of Appeal considered an application under s303 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “IA 1986”) against a decision of the trustees in bankruptcy of the Brakes (the “Trustees”).

The Supreme Court’s judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and ors^[1] (“Sequana”) is a key decision on the law surrounding directors’ duties.

The High Court was required to consider the Supreme Court’s Sequana judgment in Hunt v Singh (below).

What did we learn from Sequana?

Why calculating potential claims under s214 Insolvency Act 1986 can be far from simple

Introduction

Overview

In the recent case of Brake & Anor v Chedington Court Estate Limited [2023] UKSC 29, the Supreme Court has clarified the categories of persons who have standing to make a challenge to the conduct of a trustee in bankruptcy under s303 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”). The Supreme Court confirmed that its decision will also apply to creditors and others seeking to challenge the actions of a liquidator under s168(5) of the Act. The decision will be welcomed by practitioners.

Summary

Trustees in bankruptcy can often come up against challenges in dealing with obstructive bankrupts. A bankrupt might ignore communications and requests for interview, fail to disclose information about their assets, or provide partial cooperation which fails to offer any substantive assistance.