Peter Ferrer, Harneys
This is an extract from the 2022 edition of GRR's the Americas Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.
In summary
Fabio Guzmán-Saladín and Pamela Benzán Arbaje, Guzmán Ariza
This is an extract from the 2022 edition of GRR's the Americas Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.
In summary
Ken Baird, Mark Liscio, Michael Broeders, Marvin Knapp, Samantha Braunstein and Katharina Crinson, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
This is an extract from the 2022 edition of GRR's the Americas Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.
In summary
Richard J Cooper, Lisa M Schweitzer, Jessica Metzger and Richard C Minott, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
This is an extract from the 2022 edition of GRR's the Americas Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.
In summary
Luiz Fernando Valente de Paiva, Giuliano Colombo, Andre Moraes Marques, Thiago Junqueira and Carolina Kiyomi Iwamoto, Pinheiro Neto Advogados
This is an extract from the 2022 edition of GRR's the Americas Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.
In summary
John Wasty, John Riihiluoma, Lalita Vaswani and Sam Riihiluoma, Appleby
This is an extract from the 2022 edition of GRR's the Americas Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.
In summary
The Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill 2021 (the Bill) is expected to come into force from 25 March 2022 – it is intended to introduce an arbitration procedure for commercial rent arrears accrued by businesses during the “protected period” and also to extend the restrictions on the use of winding up proceedings and now to include personal bankruptcy.
The “protected period” relates to business tenancies adversely affected by the pandemic either by enforced closure or restrictions placed on trade. This period – as set out in section 5 of the Bill – runs from:
In the first three months of 2021, almost 40,000 companies were struck off the Companies House register – an increase of 743% on the same period in 2020. Speculation that these figures related to avoidance of coronavirus-related loan repayments led the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to take the highly unusual step, in March 2021, of making a blanket objection to any application for dissolution by a company with an unpaid bounce-back loan.
In FCA v Carillion [2021] EWCH 2871 (Ch), the High Court has confirmed that Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) enforcement action against Carillion Plc (in Liquidation) (Carillion) pursuant to certain provisions of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) does not constitute an “action or proceeding” and therefore falls outside of the scope of the statutory stay imposed by section 130(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the Act).
Section 130(2) of the Act
A significant rise in criminal prosecutions of company directors indicates that the Insolvency Service is raising the stakes when it comes to pursuing the most egregious cases of wrongdoing. While typically the sanctions for a rogue director would be limited to disqualification proceedings, a small but growing number of directors are finding themselves facing criminal prosecution as a result of Insolvency Service action - with 122 convictions in the year to 30 September, compared to just 40 in the same period for the previous year.