The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 makes the most significant changes to UK insolvency law in a generation. The Act introduces three permanent measures: a new free standing moratorium, a new restructuring plan process (largely modelled on schemes of arrangement but with the addition of a cross-class cram-down), and restrictions on termination of contracts for the supply of goods and services. The moratorium and the restructuring plan are of particular significance to secured lenders, and this note addresses some of the most frequently asked questions by the ABL community.
Due to the severe economic consequences of the coronavirus pandemic, the Hungarian Government adopted Government Decree 249/2020 (28 May) that introduced certain amendments to Act XLIX of 1991 on Bankruptcy and Liquidation Proceedings.
The outbreak of coronavirus COVID-19 represents one of the most significant global public health crises in recent memory and is causing major disruption and unprecedented volatility in markets, economies and businesses. With such great social and economic uncertainty, it is inevitable that existing financial arrangements will be affected and asset-based lenders (ABLs) are not immune to this. They are, however, uniquely positioned – given the flexibility of the products they offer – to react to the ever-changing economic landscape.
An insight into the key issues and challenges facing global infrastructure projects, and a look at possible solutions and mitigations.
In brief
On January 31, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada released its much-anticipated decision in Orphan Well Association et al. v. Grant Thornton Limited et al., 2019 SCC 5, commonly referred to as “Redwater”. Specifically, Redwater clarifies the priority as between environmental obligations and those afforded to secured creditors in insolvency proceedings.
The economic value of IP rights in US bankruptcy proceedings has risen rapidly. Due to Congress's unique view of trademark licenses, appellate courts are increasingly divided on the ability both of debtor-owners to freely reject them, and of licensees to continue to use them. In In re Tempnology LLC,1 the Supreme Court has been asked to provide much-needed certainty on these issues.
Where restructuring measures comprising collective redundancies become necessary, the employer must fulfil a number of legal requirements to successfully implement such measures. While it is sometimes tempting to implement the necessary restructuring in a way that ignores the various legal requirements (e.g. co-determination of the works council etc.), there are only exceptional situations in which such a way does not lead to a total failure of the original plan.
The Supreme Court's decision in Lehman Waterfall I was handed down this morning. DLA Piper represents one of the successful appellants, Lehman Brothers Limited (in administration) (LBL).
The court was asked to consider certain issues relating to distributions in the estate of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE), an unlimited company in administration. Such issues arose due to a substantial anticipated surplus in LBIE and sought to resolve particular lacunas in UK insolvency legislation.
Shortly before insolvency, financially distressed companies often receive monies which appear "morally" to be due to third parties, such as customer deposits or monies due to be received by the company as agent on behalf of its principal. If the company then enters an insolvency process, can it keep the money, leaving the customer/principal with no more than the right to prove, as an unsecured creditor in the insolvency? Or should the money be protected by some form of trust in favour of the "morally entitled" recipient?
License purchases can be excluded from the insolvency administrator’s right to reject or assume contracts