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.
The new Part 26A Companies Act Restructuring Plan procedure, dubbed the “Super Scheme”, (summarised here) was gathering pace in the English courts since its introduction in June last year. Last week’s judgment in gategroup presents a potential speed bump in terms of its implementation as the restructuring tool of choice in European cross-border restructurings.
Az ENEFI és a román adóhatóság közötti jogvitában az eljáró bíróság előzetes döntéshozatali kérelemmel fordult az Európai Unió Bíróságához, melyben az uniós jog értelmezését kérte a magyarországi fizetésképtelenségi eljárás romániai joghatásával kapcsolatban. Korábbi blogbejegyzésünkben beszámoltunk az ENEFI és a romániai adóhatóság közötti jogvitában 2016.