In France, losses incurred by a company in a given fiscal year can be carried forward to offset profits in subsequent years, without time limit. The annual offset against future profits is limited to a maximum of €1 million, plus 50% of the portion of profit exceeding this threshold. Any unused balance is carried forward to the following year. It is also possible to opt to carry back losses against the previous year's profits, up to a maximum of €1 million.
The Porter Davis liquidation in early 2023 put into sharp focus the practice of some builders taking deposits from owners before obtaining domestic building insurance for their work, insurance that helps to protect owners in the event of a builder’s insolvency.
In the case of Porter Davis, this practice left thousands of owners without insurance to recover the loss of their deposits, leading the State Government to implement a relief scheme to compensate home owners over $28 million, later extended to 20 February 2024 and expanded to other builders in liquidation.
When a bankruptcy debtor rejects a lease, a landlord is entitled to a rejection damages claim. Under Section 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code, a landlord’s claim is capped at “the rent reserved by such lease, without acceleration, for the greater of one year, or 15%, not to exceed three years, of the remaining term of such lease.”
Courts have taken two different approaches in interpreting what constitutes the “15%” in the statute: (A) the remaining rent due under the lease; or (B) the remaining time under the lease.
The “Rent Approach”
An insolvency administrator may lose their right to restitution arising from an insolvency avoidance if they are prevented from exercising the right in good faith by their conduct in the context of the conclusion of a redemption agreement, by which the creditor (and opposing party) waives rights to separate satisfaction.
Decision
In the recent High Court case of Drelle v Servis-Terminal LLC [2024] EWHC 521 (Ch) the Court was asked to answer that very question. David Garner and Owen John of our Commercial Disputes Team analyse the outcome below.
The case is of potential importance to UK businesses that conduct business outside of the UK.
Background
The Courts, practitioners and leading textbooks have always assumed that the Limitation Act 1980 (the Limitation Act) does not apply to claims for relief from unfair prejudice under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 (the Companies Act).
In THG Plc v Zedra Trust Company (Jersey) Limited [2024] EWCA Civ 158, the Court of Appeal examined the basis for that assumption and unanimously decided that:
Serving as the stalking horse bidder in a Section 363 sale1 can provide a buyer with financial and legal protections, as well as better position the buyer to ultimately acquire the debtor's assets.
General Overview
Background
SUMMARY
The UK government recently introduced legislation implementing changes to the special administration regime for regulated water companies (“WISAR”). The changes are designed to modernise the WISAR and to better align it with the special administration regimes for other systemically important sectors like energy supplies and investment banks.
随着社会发展与商业模式的不断丰富，不同商事主体之间会因愈发复杂的交易往来产生繁多的债权债务关系，整体经济环境下行、转入逆周期的情况下，债务危机频频爆发，债务重组已成为债务危机化解的一种重要方式，而债务重组能否成功的关键因素取决于是否存在契合企业、债权人、投资人甚至政府或监管机关要求的重组方案，故债务重组方案的设计是债务重组的重中之重。本文结合相关项目经验，对债务重组方案设计的总体思路及流程，以及中介机构在重组方案设计时的角色作用提出探讨，以期更好地促进债务重组工作之推进。
一、重组范围