Amplifying JCAM Commercial Real Estate Property XV Ltd v Davis Haulage Ltd [2018] EWCA CIV 276 the court has again considered repeated Notices of Intention to Appoint (NOITA) and the effect on the interim moratorium.

Background

This case involved the Company filing 4 successive NOITAs although only two of them were the subject of these proceedings (NOITA 1 and NOITA 2).

The Company owned a Property which was subject to a legal mortgage and QFC. The secured loan was in default and the Company was seeking to delay enforcement whilst it refinanced.

This question is of particular importance considering further that the provisions of the Luxembourg Commercial Code may seem confusing when read literally and in isolation as to whether the period commences from the date of cessation of payments (cessation des paiements) alone, or the date of both the cessation of payments (cessation des paiements) and loss of creditworthiness (ébranlement du crédit) (i.e., the cumulative criteria for bankruptcy).

The proposed new regulations to safeguard the proprietary of pre-packs have caused alarm in the profession, one of the areas of concern being the requirement that the Evaluator central to the process requires no professional qualifications but thankfully are qualified if they think they are (yes, you did detect some sarcasm).

The Regulations will mean that an administrator cannot execute a pre-pack if the following applies:

Background

The Debtor was 82 years of age, and subject to a bankruptcy petition in the County Court in the sum of £62,000 which was heard on 19 December 2019.

PJSC Uralkali v Rowley & Anor [2020] EWHC 3442 (Ch) is about the sale of the Force India F1 racing team, owned and operated by Force India Formula One Team Limited (the “Company”).

The Force India F1 team was more successful on the track than it was financially and by the summer of 2018, the Company was in a precarious financial position. The Company went into administration and appointed joint administrators on 27 July 2018 (the “Joint Administrators”).

The issue in this case concerned the failure of a holder of a Qualifying Floating Charge (QFC) to give notice to a prior QFC holder before appointing administrators, therefore potentially calling into question the validity of the administration.

Genoteerd JANUARI 2021 NUMMER 138 WHOA - Wet homologatie onderhands akkoord - Inleiding - WHOA - hoofdlijnen - WHOA - bescherming schuldenaar en schuldeisers gedurende het akkoordtraject - Concluderend In deze uitgave Genoteerd 3 1 Inleiding 1.1 Op 1 januari 2021 is het wetsvoorstel wet homologatie onderhands akkoord (de WHOA) in werking getreden.

Quoted WHOA - the Dutch scheme of arrangement JANUARY 2021 EDITION 138 - Introduction - WHOA – main features - WHOA – protection of the debtor and creditors during the ratification process - In conclusion In this edition Quoted 3 1 Introduction 1.1 On 1 January 2021 the draft bill on ‘court sanctioning private composition to avoid bankruptcy” (wet homologatie onderhands akkoord – WHOA, also known as the “Dutch scheme of arrangement”) has been enacted.

During this second wave of COVID, new lock-down measures have been taken. Belgium has already provided for numerous measures to mitigate the economic impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19). In addition, the Belgian authorities have again adopted a statutory moratorium imposing a stay on creditors’ right to enforce debts, terminate existing agreements early and initiate bankruptcy proceedings.

The facts of this case were somewhat unusual although it serves as a reminder of the principles involved in the trading of a business by a trustee in bankruptcy.

Background