美国是世界上最容易开展业务的司法管辖区之一1。监管壁垒总体较低，建立分支机构或业务实体方 便快捷，相比其他多数发达经济体，劳动就业法律对雇主更为友好，并且法律体系发达、透明。然 而，在美国进行投资或设立业务之前，仍有若干准入壁垒及营商挑战需要考虑。 本刊将简要介绍可能限制非美国人进入美国市场或在美国设立业务后开展业务能力的贸易管制问题， 以及对外国投资者而言极其重要的公司、商事、劳动就业、移民、知识产权、反洗钱、反垄断、出 口管制、反腐败、责任、破产等法律及实践。本刊并非综合性指南，仅对投资者需要考虑及与法律 顾问商讨的一些重要问题加以概述。 

EBITDA first rose to prominence in the US leveraged buy-out craze of the 1980s and has since formed the key metric of leveraged finance transactions across the world. In this article, we focus on its evolution in the European loans market, and explore how financial covenant and certain other protections in loan documentation have been eroded in recent years as a result of those changes.

This article first appeared in the November edition of Butterworths Journal of International Banking and Financial Law. 

It’s an open secret that the commendable goals envisaged by the legislature with the introduction of the business rescue proceedings in Chapter 6 of our Companies Act are being hampered as a result of poorly drafted statutory provisions that govern the business rescue process. Section 141(2)(a)(ii) is however not one of these vague provisions.

On 24 October 2017 the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in what has become known as the Waterfall IIA and B litigation (Burlington Loan Management Limited and others v Lomas and others [2017] EWCA Civ 1462). The decision also covered an appeal of one point from the High Court Waterfall IIC decision.

Bond indentures and loan agreements often include make-whole provisions to provide protection to lenders and investors in the event of debt repayment prior to maturity. Make-whole provisions work to compensate the investor/lender for any future interest lost when the issuer/borrower repays the note prior to a specific date.

In order to promote a "rescue culture", TUPE says that where the transferring business is the subject of bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings instituted "with a view to the liquidation of the assets of the transferor", the employees will not transfer and any dismissals connected with the transfer are not automatically unfair.

Can a creditor cancel an agreement with a company in business rescue and what is the consequence of a business rescue practitioner suspending an agreement before cancellation?

The lawfulness of cancelling a contract during business rescue

Judge Andre van Niekerk handed down an interesting judgment in the High Court of South Africa (North Gauteng Division) on 30 September 2013.  In my respectful opinion the judgment is insightful and is correct.  The facts are fairly simple.  Miles Plant Hire (Pty) Ltd (MPH) had a tax liability of R37 441 090.59 to the commissioner of the South African Revenue Services (SARS). SARS had levied a tax assessment in this amount on MPH, which included penalties and interest.

Consider the following commonly encountered scenario: A creditor had instituted litigation proceedings against Company X and obtained a default judgment against it. Pursuant to the judgment the creditor issued a writ of execution, but is now faced with the situation where an affected person has brought an application in terms of section 131(1) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (the Act) to place Company X under supervision and to commence business rescue proceedings. What is the effect on the creditor?

HIGHLIGHTS

The credit crunch caused problems for businesses at the same time as the value of pension scheme assets plunged, adding ballooning defined benefit pension deficits to the woes of struggling companies.

Company insolvencies, and attempts at restructuring to avoid insolvencies, can have a significant impact on the pension schemes sponsored by those companies. The pensions issues can also act as a significant obstacle to restructuring.