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:

ITALY

BANCA MONTE DEI PASCHI DI SIENA SpA

Monte dei Paschi di Siena (“Monte Paschi”) founded in 1472 and said to be the oldest bank in the world is, at the time of publication, in a race against the clock to raise EUR 5 billion in capital by the end of December to avoid either a state bail-out or potentially being wound down by the European Central Bank (“ECB”).

In times of financial turbulence, politicians, regulators and the media make the case for tighter controls of the markets.  However, with new regulatory powers coming in and the resulting extra layer of complexity that their application brings, investors have their reasons not to put their trust in regulators.  As seen with recent developments in Portugal and Italy, a number of competing motivations surround the rescue of financial institutions.  The old maxim – “Put your trust in God, but keep your powder dry” -  may be applied to describe investor sentiment in an envir

Cadwalader partner Richard Nevins discusses developments in European restructurings with Doug Mintz, Restructuring Review's Co-Editor-in-Chief and Cadwalader Special Counsel.

In our update this month we take a look at a case in which a non-party costs order was made against a major shareholder in the insolvent claimant company. The court found that the shareholder was the real party to the litigation; it funded the litigation, it was exercising control over the litigation and it would have been the main beneficiary had the litigation succeeded. We cover this, and other issues affecting the insolvency and fraud industry:

Montpelier Business Reorganisation Ltd v Jones & Others (2017)

Background

The British Retail Consortium (BRC) recently reported strong trading for the UK high street in the weeks leading up to Christmas 2016. In a fillip for a sector beset by problems, the slow start to the Christmas trading period was reversed as spending in the sector in December grew 1.7% on the same period last year.