Amid ongoing economic uncertainty, businesses face growing – and sometimes insurmountable – challenges to remain viable, leading to a marked increase in accelerated or ‘distressed’ sales.

Distressed M&A describes a sale of shares or assets where the business is in financial distress. This includes, for example, companies that are undergoing restructuring or facing insolvency. The sale can be led by the company itself or an officeholder if the company has entered into a formal insolvency process.

Global political crises, volatile interests, inflation and supply chain issues challenge many companies. In this blog series, VISCHER's restructuring & insolvency team will show how companies can navigate through these challenges. Here you will find answers to the most important questions regarding the duties of a director of a Swiss subsidiary.

1. What is the group dilemma and what interests must a Swiss subsidiary's board safeguard?

On 7 December 2022, the European Commission published a proposal for a directive for the harmonisation of certain aspects of insolvency laws across EU member states. One of the key elements of this proposal is the introduction of harmonised pre-pack proceedings aimed at increasing the efficiency of business sales in insolvency proceedings.

The Commercial Chamber of the French Supreme Court ("Cour de cassation") has recently handed down a decision of particular interest for distressed M&A transactions: Cass. com. 1er mars 2023, no. 21-14.787, FS-B.

Alexandre Koenig, partner and head of the firm's restructuring and insolvency practice in France analyses the legal and practical consequences of this decision for sellers of French distressed companies.

Context

The EU Commission has presented a draft directive on the mandatory inclusion of a "pre-pack proceeding" in national insolvency laws.

On 7 December 2022, the European Commission published a draft directive harmonising certain aspects of insolvency law with the aim of facilitating distressed M&A by reducing legal uncertainties in cross-border transactions.

Managing the financial health of a business to ensure it continues to be viable and successful can be challenging, particularly in today’s economic environment.

June 2023

Contents

Official Receiver v Kelly (Re Walmley Ash Ltd and Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986) [2023] EWHC 1181 (Ch) deals with an application for a disqualification order under s 6 Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 against Andrew John Kelly arising out of his conduct as a director of Walmsley Ash Ltd which was wound up by the court on an HMRC petition in 2017. The conduct relied on was that:

Investing in or acquiring distressed assets can be a lucrative investment strategy for those with a healthy risk appetite and a roadmap for sourcing and evaluating quality assets.

Following a steep run-up in crypto asset prices and valuations of crypto-adjacent businesses in the last two years, there has been a sharp increase in companies and assets in the space looking at deeply distressed valuations, liquidity crunches or formal insolvency or bankruptcy proceedings.

The enforcement of court orders that are designed to preserve, trace or track crypto-assets within North America is often limited in practice. As seen in the recent Ontario decision of Cicada 137 LLC v. Medjedovic (“Cicada”),^[1] mechanisms by which legal enforcement principles can be effectively applied against stolen or misappropriated crypto-assets are constrained.

Currently, the British Virgin Islands has no legislative framework for regulating third party litigation funding. Until recently, the absence of such a framework led many to believe that the rules against maintenance and champerty still operated so as in practice to prevent litigants from raising funds from third parties to prosecute or to defend claims. In Crumpler v Exential Investments Inc (BVIHC(COM) 2020/0081; 29 September 2020) Jack J clarified that third party funding arrangements were enforceable in the BVI.