Das Bundesarbeitsgericht (BAG) hatte darüber zu entscheiden, wann eine Sozialplandotierung durch die Einigungsstelle für ein Unternehmen außerhalb der Insolvenz wirtschaftlich unvertretbar ist. Dies sei der Fall, wenn die Erfüllung der Sozialplanverbindlichkeit zu einer Illiquidität, einer bilanziellen Überschuldung oder einer nicht mehr hinnehmbaren Schmälerung des Eigenkapitals der Gesellschaft führe. Liege danach eine wirtschaftliche Unvertretbarkeit vor, sei das Ermessen der Einigungsstelle überschritten und der beschlossene Sozialplan unwirksam.

In recent years much ink has been spilled opining on the so called 'Quincecare' duty of care, and the limits of it (see links to our recent insolvency law updates covering the topic below). The judgment in Barclays Bank plc v Quincecare Ltd [1992] 4 All ER 363 was a first instance decision on Steyn J, in which he found that a bank has a duty not to execute a payment instruction given by an agent of its customer without making inquiries if the bank has reasonable grounds for believing that the agent is attempting to defraud the customer.

Subchapter V eligibility requires a debtor to be “engaged in” commercial/business activities.

Case Law Consensus

Case law consensus is that such activities must exist on the petition filing date. That means a debtor cannot utilize Subchapter V when:

• business assets are fully-liquidated;
• unpaid debts are the only remnant of the failed business; and
• prospects for resuming such activities are nil.

So . . . here’s the question: Is that the right eligibility standard?

I say, “No.”

A Hypothetical

Earlier this year, the English Court refused to sanction two Part 26A restructuring plans ("RPs") which sought to bind HMRC, the UK tax authority, into restructurings via "cross-class cram down".

The confluence of the COVID-19 pandemic, high inflation, and increased borrowing costs culminated in countries incurring record levels of debt.[1] Despite this global debt crisis, there is currently no comprehensive set of rules or body of law to govern the restructuring of sovereign debt.

As noted by my partner David Besikof, the failure of various blockchain businesses is leading to a number of complications in Bankruptcy Court. However, these complications are now edging into allegations of outright fraud. The dimensions of the fraud alleged by Gemini here appear to be both fuzzy and sweeping.

Two recent cases, Re Guangdong Overseas Construction Corporation [2023] HKCFI 1340 (the “GOCC Case“) and Re Trinity International Brands Limited [2023] HKCFI 1581 (the “Trinity Case“), reaffirm

The three year review of CIGA (the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act) published by the Insolvency Service suggests that we might see changes to the corporate moratorium process – will these address concerns about the process and encourage more insolvency practitioners to recommend its use?

By its very nature fraud is about dishonesty for personal gain. Dishonesty often continues beyond any judgment against the perpetrator, and fraudsters often have a number of tricks up their sleeve to evade payment of any judgment debt.

Summary

Earlier this year, a group of bondholders advised by William Fry and owed over US$175m by GTLK Europe DAC (GTLK Europe) and GTLK Europe Capital DAC (GTLK Capital) (collectively the Companies) petitioned for the winding up of the Companies on a number of grounds, including that they had failed to discharge scheduled interest payments and the accelerated debt constituted by the bonds following the interest payment defaults.