Following the High Court’s landmark case in 2023 where cryptocurrency was recognised by the Court as property and could form a subject matter of a trust, the High Court recently further clarified the trust relationship between exchanges and their customers. Non-Consenting Customers (NCCs) who did not accept the 2018 Terms and Conditions (T&C) were found to have a proprietary interest in their assets, giving them priority in the liquidation process. Conversely, customers who had agreed to the T&Cs were treated as unsecured creditors.

In this first of a series of articles looking at current issues and recent case law in the world of distressed PFI/PPP projects, we consider the recent outcome of the Tameside Hospital dispute, and what pointers can be taken from it which may help avoid or resolve disputes in future so that distressed projects can get back on track. This is a tale of disagreement, adjudication, threats of insolvency, Court proceedings and – ultimately – a settlement which may offer a useful benchmark to which other troubled projects can have regard.

We have blogged previously about the intersection of fraud and bankruptcy.

In Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 144 S. Ct. 2071 (2024) (“Purdue”), the Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize nonconsensual releases of nondebtors as part of a chapter 11 plan. The Court narrowly read the Code’s language, providing that a plan may “include any other appropriate provision not inconsistent with the applicable provisions of this title,” 11 U.S.C.

In a decision delivered on 7 June 2024 (2024TALCH02/00950) (the Decision), the Luxembourg District Court provided for substantive clarifications regarding article 10 of the Luxembourg Law of 7 August 2023 on the continuation of businesses and modernisation of insolvency law (the Restructuring Law). This article empowers the Court to appoint judicial agents (mandataires de justice) in case of serious and aggravated misconduct (manquements graves et caractérisés) by the debtor or its corporate bodies, threatening the continuity of the business.

Op 27 mei 2024 is het Wetsvoorstel overgang van onderneming in faillissement in internetconsultatie gegaan (de WOVOF). De WOVOF beoogt de werknemersbescherming bij faillissement te vergroten, met name in geval van een doorstart. De WOVOF introduceert onder andere een verplichting voor de doorstarter om (in beginsel) alle werknemers uit de failliete onderneming over te nemen. Deze en andere maatregelen worden in dit nieuwsbericht nader toegelicht. 

Huidige regeling en aanleiding WOVOF

On 27 May 2024, the draft bill on transfer of undertaking in bankruptcy (in Dutch: Wetsvoorstel overgang van onderneming in faillissement, the WOVOF) was made available for internet consultation. The WOVOF aims to increase the protection of employees in case of bankruptcy, and more particular, in case of a restart (in Dutch: doorstart). The WOVOF introduces, amongst other things, an obligation for the acquirer in a restart to (in principle) offer employment to all employees from the bankrupt company. This and other measures will be discussed in detail in this this news blog. 

This article originally appeared in The Bankruptcy Strategist.

To file bankruptcy in the U.S., a debtor must reside in, have a domicile or a place of business in, or have property in the United States. 11 U.S.C. §109(a). In cross border Chapter 15 cases, courts have considered if a foreign debtor must satisfy that jurisdictional test.

At a hearing in mid-March, the Delaware bankruptcy court held Camshaft Capital Fund, LP, Camshaft Capital Advisors, LLC, Camshaft Capital Management (collectively, “Camshaft”) and William Cameron Morton, principal of Camshaft, in civil contempt. The case is noteworthy because the court not only imposed monetary sanctions but also ordered civil confinement to compel Camshaft and Morton to comply with the court’s prior discovery order. The court issued a supplementary opinion on April 3, 2024, after Camshaft appealed.

The Belgian Constitutional Court addressed in a recent judgment the treatment of creditors in a collective debt settlement procedure. The central question was whether a different treatment of creditors, depending on whether they benefit from security over financial collateral, can be justified by objective criteria and whether this aligns with the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination.

Since the court finds the different treatment unconstitutional, the judgment impacts the enforcement rights of pledgees of financial collateral granted by private individuals.