Bankruptcies with large tort claims are common:

• some involve a limited number of claimants (e.g., a drunk driver hits a bus or a restaurant serves bad food one evening); and
• others have large numbers of claimants, some of whom won’t even be known for at least another decade (e.g., asbestos cases).

Often in tort bankruptcies, the total amount of claims overwhelms the debtor’s ability to pay: i.e., existing assets, insurance coverages and projected future income streams are, simply, insufficient.

1. Introducción

En la edición de este mes de abril destacamos la ya famosa sentencia de la Audiencia Provincial de Valencia del 27 de marzo que declara la ineficacia total del plan de restructuración de Das Photonic, S.L.

Sobre esta sentencia se ha hablado mucho porque es la primera declaración de ineficacia de un plan de restructuración.

La sentencia tiene casi 150 páginas pero reseñamos abajo los puntos clave de su contenido que hemos extractado porque creemos pueden servir de lección para casos futuros.

On Tuesday 23 April 2024, Macfarlanes hosted a roundtable discussion on the EU Directive on Restructuring and Insolvency of 20 June 2019 (EUR 2019/1023, Directive) and the method of, and tools offered by, its implementation across a number of EU member states and equivalent domestic legislation – namely Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (Part 26A) and restructuring plans (for more on restructuring plans under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006, see our more in-depth article on “

Several myths and stereotypes surround headcount restructuring projects in Europe. Headcount restructurings must factor in local labor law and co-determination rights, which vary significantly across the continent. As a result, multinational employers often fear the cost and complexity of dealing with restructurings at their European operations and subsidiaries.

Typical drivers of anxiety include:

The FCA has now published proposed amendments to its (the IP guidance). Our previous article highlighted the significance of the Consumer Duty in the financial services industry and how firms will need to view customer outcomes and proactively address harm in the retail market.

Introduction

When the restructuring officer regime was introduced, it was assumed by many that joint provisional liquidators would no longer be appointed for restructuring purposes, having been overtaken by the new regime.  The recent decision of Re Kingkey Financial International (Holdings) Ltd suggests that this assumption may not be sound.  It also raises several interesting points regarding the restructuring officer regime that merit further consideration.  This article considers the Kingkey case, and the points arising from it

In my most recent blog post, I provided some tips for creditors who find themselves in the Subchapter V arena. This is somewhat of a follow-up to that one.

ICC Judge Mullen’s judgment in Sriram v Revenue & Customs & Anor [2024] EWHC 853 (Ch) follows an application by the bankrupt, Ms Sriram, to annul a bankruptcy order made against her on a petition of HMRC in circumstances in which proper service of both the statutory demand and the petition was contested and in which her capacity to understand the proceedings against her was also in issue.

Under sections 90-15 and 90–20 of Schedule 2 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) (Practice Schedule) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act), a liquidator may apply to the court for directions and judicial advice in winding up.

Purpose of Judicial Advice

The purpose of judicial advice was to give the liquidator advice as to the proper course of action to take in the liquidation, as noted by Goldberg J in Re Ansett Australia Ltd and Korda [2002] FCA 90 (Ansett).