The new Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the Bill) has been introduced into the UK Parliament and proposes significant changes to insolvency law, including:

The coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak has widespread and significant implications for the financing situation of companies. Mandatory emergency measures, such as closure orders, have cut off entire sectors from revenue and cash flows with severe consequences for corporate liquidity. In addition, deteriorating market conditions are putting additional pressure on companies and their ability to service their debt.

In an important new English Court of Appeal judgment in LBI EHF v Raiffeisen Bank International AG [2018] EWCA Civ 719 (11 April 2018), Lord Justice Flaux approved and expanded the earlier High Court judgment of Mr Justice Knowles CBE in LBI EHF (in winding up) v Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich [2017] EWHC 522 (Comm) (20 March 2017) on the correct meaning and treatment of t

A law decree providing for urgent measures on guarantees, foreclosure and insolvency proceedings and aiming at restoring damages suffered by investors of banks under liquidation, was published on the Italian Official Gazette n. 59 on 3 May 2016 (the Decree). The Decree must be converted into law by the Italian Parliament by 2 July 2016 (i.e. within 60 days from the date of its publication) to become fully effective.

“Pegno mobiliare non possessorio”, an Italian floating security interest

Summary

Eastman Kodak Corporation (Kodak US), the US parent of the Kodak group, filed for chapter 11 protection in the US on 19 January 2012. It successfully emerged from bankruptcy on 3 September 2013 as a new restructured technology company focused on imaging for businesses. Many other Kodak companies throughout the world were able to avoid following in their parent’s footsteps and were maintained as going concern businesses while the US bankruptcy process was ongoing.

This briefing looks at the options available to directors in the winding up of a solvent company.

On 25 February 2010, the Paris Court of Appeal handed down two much-anticipated decisions confirming that creditors are able to challenge the opening of safeguard proceedings and clarifying the basis upon which safeguard proceedings can be opened by a debtor.  

Summary

Providing financial support to related parties that are in financial distress may be in the interest of the group as a whole, but is not necessarily in the direct interest of the individual group company providing such support. This client briefing discusses that issue from a Dutch corporate law and tax law perspective, including the potential consequences if there is a material difference between the financial risks assumed by the Dutch company and the benefits of entering into such a transaction.

Introduction  

A company went into administration and company voluntary arrangements were entered into to effect a rescue of viable parts of the group. As part of that process, a valuation of the liabilities of the companies as at 1 October 2001 was required. They included claims arising under section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995. However, those debts were not triggered until July 2004 and the scheme actuary for did not sign the section 75 certificates and apportion shares amongst the various companies until March 2006.

The Supreme Court recently denied certiorari in Picard v. Citibank, in which the petitioner sought review of a Second Circuit decision on a seemingly obscure point of law: the pleading burden for “good faith” under Section 550 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Second Circuit’s decision is part of, and highlights, a larger, systemic problem in the evolution of bankruptcy law over the last decade—the multiplication of trustee-friendly interpretations of the Bankruptcy Code that, when combined, leave innocent subsequent transferees unfairly vulnerable to meritless clawback suits.