The insolvency profession (and the Queensland market in particular) has been abuzz this year with the issue of CORA – a shorthand reference to theEnvironmental Protection (Chain of Responsibility) Amendment Act 2016 (Qld).
What does it mean for insolvency practitioners? Can banks really be hit with a bill to clean up their borrowers’ environmental damage? Will turnaround and restructuring professionals refuse to accept appointments out of fear of falling foul of the new regime?
This post explains what you need to know.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has just made a pronouncement on three of the most important matters open to interpretation concerning the regime applicable to financial collateral arrangements under Directive 47/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2002.
‘Shipping steel, shipping steel . . .
Nobody knows, the way it feels
Caught between Heaven and the Highway
Shipping steel, shipping steel . . .’ 1
On 7 April 2016, Administrators were appointed to South Australian-based steelmaker and iron ore miner Arrium, which reportedly owed approximately AUD4.3 billion to its lenders, suppliers and staff. The appointment covered 94 direct and indirect subsidiaries of Arrium Limited (the Arrium Companies), which at the time employed around 8,100 employees and contractors.
El Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea acaba de pronunciarse sobre tres de los más importantes extremos interpretativos del régimen de garantías financieras contenido en la Directiva 47/2002.
La Audiencia Nacional, en una interesante sentencia, ha matizado el criterio que desde la Administración ha venido manteniéndose en muchos casos en virtud del cual la presencia de una segunda finalidad en las operaciones de reestructuración empresarial, añadida a la de perseguir una auténtica reorganización de la entidad, conllevaría, partiendo del análisis conjunto de la operación, la exclusión de la posibilidad de aplicar el régimen especial previsto a efectos del impuesto sobre sociedades para las citadas operaciones.
Unscrupulous advisors, unconscionably preying on desperate directors driven by the fear of losing everything, have created a boom in illegal phoenix activity. The below article, originally published on the McCullough Robertson white collar crime blog, Collared, sheds some light on the illegal phoenix, the gravity of the problem in Australia and considers what is being done to monitor and control the issue.
In August I presented on cross-border insolvency at the joint Federal Court of Australia and Law Council of Australia conference on corporations law. The audience consisted of over 30 Federal Court judges and a range of other experienced corporate and insolvency lawyers.
Como regla general, los créditos de los administradores de hecho contra la sociedad concursada que ellos administran (o han administrado) de facto serán clasificados como subordinados en los términos previstos en los artículos 92.5.º y 93.2.2.º de la Ley Concursal. Durante los dos años siguientes a la entrada en vigor de la Ley 17/2014, ha regido un régimen coyuntural que ha permitido que los créditos derivados de la aportación de «nuevos ingresos de tesorería» (fresh money) en el marco de acuerdos de refinanciación típicos escaparan a la postergación concursal.
The defence of illegality, enunciated in arts. 1305 and 1306 of the Civil Code (abbrev.
La regla de la que vamos a tratar se formula con diversos nombres, aunque es muy conocida la expresión nemo potest propriam turpitudinem allegareo la denominación de denegatio actionis.