The legislative framework applicable to insolvency and restructuring in Jersey has seen significant developments in recent years, with the introduction of the Companies Regulations No 8 2022 (the Regulations).

The Regulations provide additional powers to a company’s creditors – firstly, in relation to provisional liquidations (an emergency procedure designed to safeguard the assets of a failing company), and secondly in relation to creditors’ winding-ups.

When a company is in financial distress, directors face difficult choices. Should they trade on to try to “trade out” of the company’s financial difficulties or should they file for insolvency? If they act too soon, will creditors complain that they should have done more to save the business? A recent English High Court case raises the prospect of directors potentially being held to account for decisions that “merely postpone the inevitable.”

The bankruptcy of the Mt. Gox cryptocurrency exchange in 2014 was a pivotal moment in cryptocurrency history. It demonstrated the vulnerabilities of early cryptocurrencies and saw the worst fears of the industry become a reality. However, in the years since it has also provided an excellent example of the successful tracing and recovery of a variety of asset classes. Creditors have recently received the first distributions from the recovered assets of Mt Gox, in stark contrast to the initial claims that access to the assets had been lost forever.

Background

EIOPA Consultation on the new Proportionality Framework under Solvency II

www.mathweswown..mcoamthesoPna.gceom1

Overview

In August this year, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority ("EIOPA") published a public consultation ("Consultation") on the new proportionality framework proposed in the Provisional Agreement on amendments to the Solvency II Directive ("Provisional Agreement").

In an opinion issued on Sept. 20 by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico, Judge David T. Thuma held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not prevent a bankruptcy court from determining whether the automatic stay applies to pending state court litigation. See In re Shook, Case No. 24-10724-t7 (Bankr. N.M. Sept. 20, 2024) [ECF No. 54].

Disagreement regarding the interpretation of section 365(c) of the Bankruptcy Code has led to divergent rulings among the bankruptcy and federal circuit courts regarding whether a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor can assume an executory contract or unexpired lease that is unassignable under applicable non-bankruptcy law without the counterparty's consent—even where the debtor has no intention of assigning the agreement to a third party.

The High Court has scrutinised the validity of a Declaration of Trust and the enforcement of charging orders. Wade v Singh sheds light on the intricate balance between property rights, trust law, and creditor protection in an insolvency. The case, centered around a property known as "the Oaks," involved the liquidators of MSD Cash & Carry Plc (in liquidation) seeking to enforce charging orders against properties owned by various family members involved in the business to satisfy a significant judgment debt.

Background of the Case

A recent ruling involved the petitioner challenging an income tax reassessment notice issued after the approval of a resolution plan by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The Hon’ble High Court of New Delhi in the case of Asian Colour Coated Ispat Limited v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.,(2024 SCC OnLine Del 5459), dated August 7, 2024, held that once a resolution plan is approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, income tax reassessment for periods before the plan’s approval is impermissible.

Insolvency & Restructuring Bulletin

A recent court decision has provided clarity on the application of the Wage Earner Protection Program Act (“WEPPA”) to former employees of companies undergoing restructuring under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”). The central issue was whether WEPPA applies to employees who were terminated as a result of a reverse vesting order (“RVO”).

Background

India’s Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (code), has revolutionised the country’s approach to insolvency, establishing a structured framework for resolving distressed assets while incorporating elements of inclusivity and accessibility. This legislation has become fundamental for businesses and financial institutions, especially as India further integrates into the global economy. The code’s protection of foreign creditors is particularly significant, as it ensures that foreign investors can confidently engage with the Indian economy without hindrance or undue trepidation.