As already mentioned in our previous article on this subject, the concept of the transfer of a business is one of the pillars of the reform of insolvency law in Belgium.

In our previous article regarding this subject, we introduced the concept of the transfer of a business under judicial authority, reviewed since the reform as of 1 September 2023.

This contribution constitutes the second part of the subject, and deals with the transfer of a business in the context of a private (confidential) preparation prior to bankruptcy.

Background

The claimant, Alun Griffiths (Contractors) Limited, sought judgment for £3,316,487.55 to enforce an adjudicator's decision in its favour against Carmarthenshire County Council.

This judgment reinforces the Court’s power to order a judgment debtor to draw down their pension for the benefit of the creditors as recently seen in Bacci v Green.

Summary

The recent judgment handed down by the High Court in Manolete v White [2023] EWHC 567 (Ch) reinforces the Court’s power to order a judgment debtor to exercise a right to draw down on their pension for the benefit of creditors as recently seen in Bacci v Green.

The Facts

INTRODUCTION Within German contract law, the principle of being bound by a contract (pacta sunt servanda) (i.e., the obligation to fulfill an agreement) applies. However, in the case of the insolvency of one of the contract parties, exceptions are made. Upon the opening of insolvency proceedings, the principle of being bound by a contract is modified. The insolvency provisions concerning the fulfillment of mutual contracts (Section 103 et seqq.

The United States Supreme Court agreed today to review a Fourth Circuit decision that denied an insurer standing to object to an asbestos producer’s Chapter 11 reorganization plan, on the basis that the insurer’s interests were not affected by the plan. The case provides the high court with an opportunity to resolve a recurring issue in mass tort bankruptcies which has split the circuits.

In the recent case of Brake & Anor v Chedington Court Estate Limited [2023] UKSC 29, the Supreme Court has clarified the categories of persons who have standing to make a challenge to the conduct of a trustee in bankruptcy under s303 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”). The Supreme Court confirmed that its decision will also apply to creditors and others seeking to challenge the actions of a liquidator under s168(5) of the Act. The decision will be welcomed by practitioners.

On 6 October 2023, Parker J handed down his reasons for dismissing an application to bring the voluntary liquidation of Port Link GP Ltd, General Partner (GP) of The Port Fund L.P. (TPF) under the supervision of the Grand Court pursuant to section 124 of the Companies Act. (Section 124)

On September 18, 2023, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”) notified the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2023 (“CIRP Amendment Regulations”) amending the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (“CIRP Regulations”) under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

In a nutshell, the CIRP Amendment Regulations:

In the recent case of Vistra ITCL (India) Limited & Ors. v. Mr. Dinkar Venkatasubramanian & Anr., the Supreme Court re-affirmed the legal position that persons who are merely beneficiaries of security by a corporate debtor do not qualify as financial creditors in the corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) of the corporate debtor. However, the Supreme Court also held that a resolution plan cannot dilute the security interest provided by the corporate debtor in favour of such beneficiaries.

Brief Facts

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced it has reached a settlement with the bankrupt crypto company Voyager over the company’s alleged deceptive crypto marketing practices. Specifically, the FTC’s complaint alleges that from at least 2018 until its declaration of bankruptcy in July 2022, Voyager enticed consumers with promises that their deposits were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and were “safe.” However, consumers’ deposits with Voyager were not eligible for FDIC insurance and were not protected in the event that Voyager failed.