In many industries, the supply chain can involve multiple suppliers and jurisdictions. In the current economic climate, it is not unusual for a supplier within the supply chain to encounter financial distress or even to enter into formal insolvency proceedings. This can have a significant impact on a company if its business depends on a distressed supplier and an alternative or additional supplier cannot be found (and production cannot be brought in house) or an alternative sourcing is not possible for other reasons, like part/raw material approval process, testing, customs etc.

In vielen Branchen kann die Lieferkette eine Vielzahl von Unternehmen und Jurisdiktionen umfassen. Im derzeitigen Wirtschaftsklima ist es nicht ungewöhnlich, dass einzelne Lieferanten innerhalb dieser Lieferkette in finanzielle   Schwierigkeiten   geraten   oder ein Insolvenzverfahren beantragen.

On 5 July 2023 the Court sanctioned Prezzo Investco Ltd's (Prezzo) restructuring plan despite strong opposition by UK tax authority, HMRC.

HMRC has taken a more active approach to opposing restructuring plans and was successful in blocking the plans recently proposed by GAS and Nasmyth (see our alert).

Lehman Bros. Int'l (Europe) (In Admin.) v. AG Fin. Prod., Inc., No. 653284/2011 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County May 17, 2023) [click for opinion]

When do amounts owed to a company constitute ‘circulating assets’ and how should they be distributed? This crucial question has not always been answered predictably in recent cases. The Court of Appeal’s decision in Resilient Investment Group Pty Ltd v Barnet and Hodgkinson as liquidators of Spitfire Corporation Limited (in liq) [2023] NSWCA 118 has provided a framework for navigating the relevant principles in the context of a priority dispute over R&D tax refunds.

Key takeaways

In this week’s TGIF, we consider Hutton, in the matter of Caydon Flemington Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers appointed) (In liq) [2023] FCA 796, a Federal Court decision concerning the grant of an extension after the ‘critical time’ for the vesting of a security interest.

Key takeaways

“Learn something new every day,” is a well-worn adage.

And it’s mostly true (I only question giving a literal meaning to the “every day” part).

Nevertheless, I’m embarrassed to acknowledge learning only recently of the existence of a noteworthy, bankruptcy-related statute: 28 U.S.C. § 959(a). Such statute reads in part (emphasis added):

In In re Nine West LBO Securities Litigation (Case No. 20-2941) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2020), a federal district court denied in part a motion to dismiss claims brought by the Nine West liquidating trustee against former directors (the "Defendants") of The Jones Group, Inc. (the "Company"), Nine West's predecessor, for, among other things, (i) breaches of their fiduciary duties of care and loyalty, and (ii) aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties. The litigation arises from the 2014 LBO of the Company by a private equity sponsor ("Buyer").

Elon Musk recently said he has a "super bad feeling" about the economy, pithily declaring what most financial commentators have been predicting in more technical terms.

In the recent decision of Paragon Offshore, No. 16-10386 (CSS), 2021 (Bankr. D. Del. June 28, 2021), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the court) addressed the issue of whether the Office of the United States Trustee (OUST) could collect its quarterly fees against assets that were previously transferred to a litigation trust (the litigation trust) free and clear of any and all claims, liens and other encumbrances pursuant to a confirmed plan of liquidation.