In brief
When would the directors of a company be bound to consider the interest of the company's creditors? This was the issue at the heart of the Singapore Court of Appeal's (SGCA) watershed decision in Foo Kian Beng v OP3 International Pte Ltd (in liquidation) [2024] SGCA 10, which comes hot on the heels of the UK Supreme Court's pronouncements on the same issue in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and others [2022] UKSC 25.
Digital assets may be new, but existing English insolvency laws and principles can deal with them. So finds the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (UKJT) in its ‘Legal Statement on Digital Assets and English Insolvency Law’, published this week.
Key takeaways include:
On 1 April 2024, the Companies Commission of Malaysia issued the Guidelines for the Adjudication of Proof of Debts under section 369B of the Companies Act 2016 (“the Guidelines”).
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