Comsa: debt restructuring PSA Financial Services Spain: establishing an asset-backed securities fund Emesa: subscribing a collar equity swap Proposal for an EU Directive on restructuring and second chance Exit right due to no dividend distribution: end of the suspension of art.
Readers will recall that on 23 September 2016 we posted an article about recognition under the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (Model Law) of the Korean rehabilitation proceedings for Hanjin Shipping.
I CORPORATE FINANCE, COVENANTS AND CREDITOR’S LIABILITY 2 II NATIONAL LEGISLATION 4 III EUROPEAN LEGISLATION 5 IV NATIONAL CASE LAW 5 NEWSLETTER I CORPORATE LAW WWW.CUATRECASAS.COM NEWSLETTER I CORPORATE LAW 2/6 CORPORATE LAW NEWSLETTER I CORPORATE FINANCE, COVENANTS AND CREDITOR’S LIABILITY Introduction In the field of corporate finance the liability of creditors that negotiate covenants with companies is an issue that currently generates great concern.
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.
‘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.
Supreme Administrative
Court Judgement of October 12, 2016
Case no. 0797/15
In this Judgment, the Supreme Administrative Court concluded that expenses related to employees, recorded as remuneration, salaries or wages, relevant to the limit of 15% foreseen for acceptance of the expenses with social benefits referred to in Article 43.2 of the CIT Code, are not limited to those that were subject to mandatory Social Security contributions.
South Central Administrative Court
Judgement of October 13, 2016
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.
In judgment 297/2016 of September 22, 2016, by Commercial Court No. 6 of Madrid, the court rejects the appeal filed by a dissenting entity affected by a court-sanctioned refinancing agreement. The appeal argued the existence of a disproportionate sacrifice due to the standstill of the notarial enforcement of a pledge on shares already executed.
In its judgment 500/2016 of July 19, 2016, the Supreme Court interprets article 62.4 of the Insolvency Act, regulating the effects of contract resolution during insolvency: