Click here to listen to the audio.
Federico Zucconi, partner del dipartimento Finance, Projects & Restructuring, analizza gli effetti della normativa di emergenza volta ad agevolare l’accesso a nuova finanza da parte delle imprese, evidenziando le zone d’ombra rimaste nella disciplina anche dopo la conversione in legge del Decreto Liquidità.
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.
Law 1676 of 2013 (Secured Interest Law), which came into effect in 2014, has substantially affected the legal scope of creditors’ rights in the context of insolvency proceedings (reorganization and liquidation). In particular, the law has potentially created a new type of creditor; the secured creditor, which has rights that differ from those creditors included in the creditor hierarchy in the Civil Code and the Corporate Insolvency Law.
Immediately following the results of the UK referendum on exiting the EU in June 2016, we wrote about the potential impact of Brexit on cross-border restructuring and insolvency work. As we identified then, the key issue in this area is the potentially significant implications of losing the reciprocal effect of the EU Regulation on insolvency proceedings and the Brussels Regulation (recast). In this article we focus on the impact of the loss of recognition under the Insolvency Regulation.
A Csődtörvényt módosító új javaslattal kapcsolatban az elmúlt napokban egy népszerű hírportálon jelent meg nagyobb terjedelmű írás „Lex reptér: törvény, ami az egész magyar gazdaságot veszélyezteti” címmel. Blogbejegyzésemben amellett érvelek, hogy amennyiben a követelésbehajtási célú felszámolási eljárásokat jogi realitásként elfogadjuk, úgy a módosítás alapvetően jó irányba mutat.
Following a suite of recent reforms to Australian insolvency laws, liquidators are now able to assign rights to sue, conferred on them personally by the Corporations Act. The new power to assign is broad. It appears that the implications of the power will need to be clarified by the judiciary before they are fully understood.
In this article, we look at the issues that arise from these legislative amendments along with the opportunities created.
After a lengthy consultation period, the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC) has now been finalised and will come into force on 1 October 2017. This protocol will apply to lenders who are seeking payment of a debt from an individual/ sole trader, as a debtor or guarantor. Now is the time to update your systems and procedures to accommodate the new protocol requirements.
What is required?
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently issued an opinion that could mean that directors and officers of insolvent entities face liability for damages caused by the failure to timely file for bankruptcy protection.
In Berryman v Zurich Australia Ltd [2016] WASC 196, the Supreme Court of Western Australia held a bankrupt, Berryman, was able to maintain legal action in his own name, claiming TPD insurance benefits from Zurich.
The Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) relevantly provides:
The Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof – BGH) on 5 March 2015 issued a decision (case no. IX ZR 133/14, available here) that is of immense relevance for all creditors and debtors that face the need of a subordination agreement (Rangrücktrittvereinbarung) under German law.