The Supreme Court has delivered a judgment providing welcome clarification on the construction and effect of section 123(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the "balance-sheet" insolvency test) and its interaction with section 123(1)(e) of the Act (the "cash flow" insolvency test).
The Pensions Regulator has issued a statement setting out its approach to Financial Support Directions in insolvency situations. It follows the Court of Appeal's decision in Bloom v The Pensions Regulator (Nortel) in October 2011 that a liability arising from a Financial Support Direction (FSD), or a contribution notice (CN), issued to a company in administration or liquidation will, except in very limited circumstances, amount to an expense of that administration or liquidation. As such, it will rank very highly in the payment priority order, in particular rank
1
MADRID E-BULLETIN
RESTRUCTURING, TURNAROUND AND INSOLVENCY
REFORM OF SPANISH INSOLVENCY LEGISLATION
On Friday 7 March 2014 the Spanish Council of Ministers approved Royal Decree-Law 4/2014, of 7 March, which adopts urgent measures on the refinancing and restructuring of corporate debt. The above Royal Decree-Law introduces a series of significant reforms to the Spanish Insolvency Act 22/2003, of 9 July, (the "Insolvency Act"). The Royal Decree-Law has entered into force on 10 March 2014.
The Supreme Court has today ruled on the ranking of certain pension liabilities when issued to companies in administration or liquidation.
Summary
Recent decisions in the Ontario courts have brought this issue to the forefront, which is salient during this time of economic uncertainty for the oil industry and its related environmental obligations. The courts have had to focus on balancing competing public interests: those of creditors and the general health and safety of the public when a debtor has an outstanding obligation to remediate its pollution.
A. THE PROBLEM
Many charities and associations have cash flow challenges, particularly in the current economic situation. They usually budget to break even financially. If some funding does not materialize as expected, they may be forced to close down. Their directors may be at financial risk as a result.
Sending the Debtors back to the drawing board after almost three years in bankruptcy, in a 139 page opinion, the Bankruptcy Court has for the second time denied confirmation of the Plan of Reorganization for Washington Mutual, Inc. (“WaMu”), which was the owner of the largest savings bank ever to be seized by the FDIC.
On August 11, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York denied five motions to dismiss certain Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases filed by debtors, including a number of issuers of commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS), that are owned by mall operator General Growth Properties, Inc. (GGP). The movants, including special servicers of the CMBS issued by GGP, based their dismissal motions primarily on a claim that the debtor’s cases were filed in bad faith.
In the biggest bank receivership in the history of the United States, the Office of Thrift Supervision seized Washington Mutual Bank on September 25 and appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as receiver. While details are still emerging, it is at least clear that all deposits were transferred to JPMorgan, as were all loans and Qualified Financial Contracts, which include swaps, options, futures, forwards, repurchase agreements and any other Qualified Financial Contract as defined in 12 U.S.C. Section 1821(e)(8)(D).