On 28 March 2019 the European Parliament adopted a Directive on insolvency, restructuring and second chance (the Directive). This project has had a long tail, following a Commission Recommendation issued in 2014 and, after that had no impact, a draft Directive in November 2016. This draft Directive is now about come to fruition. It has three main aims
1. to ensure that member states have a preventive restructuring framework – which includes a restructuring plan;
On 28 March 2019 the European Parliament adopted a Directive on insolvency, restructuring and second chance (the Directive). This project has had a long tail, following a Commission Recommendation issued in 2014 and, after that had no impact, a draft Directive in November 2016. This draft Directive is now about come to fruition. It has three main aims
A number of key decisions from the English courts in 2021 illustrate the litigation trends that are likely to have implications for the financial services industry in 2022 and beyond (see below “Cases to watch in 2022”).
Market misconduct and mis-selling
In the first of a series of claims issued by ECU Group Plc in relation to alleged wrongdoing in the foreign exchange markets by a number of banks, the High Court held that:
How would your business be impacted if one of your critical suppliers entered insolvency proceedings? What losses could you suffer, and how would you maintain continuity of supply?
Recent high profile collapses such as Carillion have highlighted this issue, with counterparties suffering significant disruption upon its failure. In the context of increasing financial uncertainty – not least because of Brexit – companies should take a hard look at their supply chain in order to assess and mitigate counterparty risk.
On 18 October 2021, the EU Commission published the sixth amendment to its Temporary Framework for State aid measures to support the economy in the COVID-19 outbreak (the Temporary Framework) adopted on 19 March 2020 (see our blog post).
On 18 December 2018 the English Court of Appeal held in the case of OJSC International Bank of Azerbaijan that the rule in Gibbs is still a fundamental tenet of English insolvency law and not to be sidestepped by the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations.
Facts
The facts in summary are these:
Before 1st October 2021, French law did not provide for the possibility to cram down shareholders, other than under Article L. 631-19-2 of the French Commercial Code, which sets conditions which are so stringent that it is not used in practice.
Directive 2019/2023 has let EU member states decide whether shareholders should be a class of “affected parties” subject to cross-class cram down or whether other measures should be implemented to avoid shareholders preventing, or making it difficult, in an unreasonable manner, the approval of a restructuring plan.
Over the Bank holiday weekend, the UK government announced that it intends to introduce new legislation to implement certain measures (detailed below) as soon as parliamentary time permits.
A recent England and Wales High Court decision demonstrates the increasingly litigious nature of Court-supervised restructuring processes. It also addresses the Court’s approach to whether foreign recognition risks represent a ‘blot’ on a proposed scheme of arrangement so that the Court should decline sanction ('the recognition/blot question').