Au cours des deux dernières années, les ordonnances de dévolution inversée (« ODI ») sont passées de concept inaperçu à l’outil de choix dans de nombreuses restructurations complexes menées en vertu de la Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies (la « LACC »). Comme les spécialistes en restructuration recourent de plus en plus aux ODI, la question se pose : les ODI remplaceront-elles les plans traditionnels pris en vertu de la LACC?
On 15 June 2021, the Central Bankruptcy Court approved the rehabilitation plan for Thai Airways International PCL (“THAI”), marking a significant milestone for one of the largest insolvency proceedings in Thailand. A number of factors underlined the unprecedented nature of the THAI restructuring. This was the first-time rehabilitation proceedings were sought by a national flag-carrying airline in which the Thai government controlled a substantial portion of the equity.
In the recent case of Re Hydrodec Group Plc [2021] NSWSC 755 (Hydrodec) the Supreme Court of New South Wales (NSW Supreme Court or Court) rejected an application by a non-operating holding company, Hydrodec Group Plc (the Company), for recognition of its United Kingdom (UK) debtor-in-possession Part A1 moratorium process (Part A1 Moratorium) and relief from a winding up application being made against the Company in Australia.
Dario Oscós is widely endorsed for his in-depth insights into creditor rights, insolvency and restructuring proceedings.
Questions & Answers
In In re KarcreditLLC [1], the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Louisiana was faced with two lenders with claims to one original stock certificate as collateral.
The Bankruptcy Code grants the power to avoid certain transactions to a bankruptcy trustee or debtor-in-possession. See, e.g., 11 U.S.C. §§ 544, 547–48. Is there a general requirement that these avoidance powers only be used when doing so would benefit creditors? In a recent decision, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico addressed this question, concluding, in the face of a split of authority, that there was such a requirement.
The Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2017 (‘Code’) was,inter alia, enacted for the resolution or liquidation of companies defaulting on their debts. These debts may include claims subject to an arbitration or sums determined in the form of an award. In the present article, we identify some potential scenarios where parties to an arbitration agreement must be conscious of the interplay between arbitration and the Code.
1.Initiating Insolvency Proceedings for contractual defaults
The case of Triple Point Technology Inc (Triple Point) v PTT Public Company Ltd (PTT) [2021] UKSC 29 has prompted considerable discussion in the construction industry.
The Companies (Rescue Process for Small and Micro Companies) Bill 2021 (Bill) detailing the government's proposed rescue process for small and micro companies (SCARP) has successfully passed through the Oireachtas and is expected to be signed into law shortly by the President. The legislation will be commenced at a future date by the Minister.
In the case of In re Walker, 473 Md. 68 (2021), the Court of Appeals responded to a certified question of law by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland (Bankruptcy Court) by stating that a lien under the Maryland Contract Lien Act (MCLA) cannot secure damages, costs of collection, late charges, and attorney's fees that accrue subsequent to the recordation of the lien.