Re Trident Fashions PLC: Exeter City Council v Bairstow [2007] EWHC 400 (Ch)

In March 2007 the High Court ruled that that non-domestic rates are payable as an expense of the administration as a “necessary disbursement” under Rule 2.67(1)(f) Insolvency Rules 1986 (IR), in priority to payment of the administrator’s remuneration.

The recently-approved Royal Decree Law 4/2014 (RDL), dated March 7 and published March 8 in the Official State Gazette (BOE), has the main goal of addressing measures to ensure the feasible restructuring of corporate debt, encouraging a relief of financial burdens for companies which, despite high debt levels, are still feasible from an operational viewpoint.

In the current climate, the demand for jobs substantially exceeds the supply. Even so, for employers it can still be difficult to find a quality employee who meets the specific requirements for the given job. Once a suitable employee is found for the vacant position, they complete the usual formalities – submitting documents on their education, health and evidence of criminal records, agree with the employer on wages and other conditions of the employment and sign the labor contract.

The matter subject to this analysis is decision taken by a Bankruptcy Administration dealing with three companies of the same company group which are involved in a bankruptcy proceeding. Given the situation and in response of the confusing information of assets, the Administration under discussion decided to gather the three companies joining all their creditors in a sole debt pooling and besides, joining all the rights and assets of the three companies.  

Following the latest reform of the Bankruptcy Act, the Spanish Tax Authorities have established a mechanism to ensure the collection of the applicable VAT in the acquisition of property from companies declared bankrupt.

Until 1 January 2012, Article 84 of the VAT Act 37/1992, when regulating the reversal cases of the taxpayer liable for this tax, no reference is made to companies declared bankrupt and the cases of their goods being acquired. However, this situation has changed since 1 January 2012.

The term “frenemy” – a combination of the words friend and enemy – has emerged from modern vernacular to describe someone who is simultaneously a partner and an adversary. The term is perhaps perfectly emblematic of the restructuring process where various constituents make and break alliances in an effort to steer the restructuring process. In so doing, the lines between friend and enemy are often blurred or altered during the course of the restructuring.

A popular line of thinking among bankruptcy practitioners and commentators holds that substantive consolidation – the combining of assets and liabilities of a debtor and another debtor or non-debtor entity to satisfy creditor claims against both entities ratably from the resulting pool – is an equitable remedy of judicial invention with no specific foundation in the Bankruptcy Code.

The much awaited court decision on the status of Financial Support Directions (“FSDs”) and Contribution Notices (“CNs”) * issued by the Pensions Regulator against target companies after the commencement of English insolvency processes in respect of such targets was handed down by the court on Friday 10 December 2010. The reluctant decision of Mr Justice Briggs that FSDs and CNs in these circumstances were not provable debts but ranked as expenses of the insolvency process, taking precedence ahead of unsecured creditors, has caused dismay in the restructuring community.

On 13 July 2010 the Federal Ministry of Justice and Finance (Bundesministerien für Justiz und Finanzen) published a discussion draft of an Act for the Restructuring and Orderly Liquidation of Credit Institutions, for the Establishment of a Restructuring Fund for Credit Institutions and for the Extension of the Limitation Period of Corporate Law Management Liability (Restructuring Act) (Referentenentwurf eines Gesetzes zur Restrukturierung und geordneten Abwicklung von Kreditinstituten, zur Errichtung eines Restrukturierungsfonds für Kreditinstitute und zur Verlängerung der Verj

The German Federal Civil Court (BGH) in its decision of 15 April 2010 (IX ZR 188/09) clarified the legal position of holders of preferred stock in insolvency plan proceedings.