The economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic led to a wave of creditor schemes of arrangement ("schemes") and restructuring plans ("RPs") in the second half of 2020, which shows no sign of abating in 2021. For the uninitiated, the scheme (a long-established tool) and the newer RP process are court led UK restructuring options that a company can use to bind a minority of creditors into a restructuring. An RP can also be used to "cram down" an entire dissenting creditor class into a deal where certain conditions are met.

The High Court of England & Wales considered, in respect of the delayed completion of a solar project, the appropriate end date for liquidated damages under a terminated construction contract.

It is usual and standard for a construction contract to contain a liquidated damages clause. It is also common for a termination clause to be included and it is not unusual for it to be exercised. Strangely, however, it is not clear under English law how these two concepts interact.

A recent judgment of the German Federal Fiscal Court (FFC) will have significant impact on the restructuring tool kit afforded under German law. The FFC has found that the existing practice of permitting a tax liability arising from restructuring gains to be deferred and (eventually) waived violates fundamental principles of German law. The ruling has created uncertainty regarding the proper tax treatment of restructuring gains, which may have the effect of diminishing the prospect of success of a restructuring for a company in financial distress.

Настоящий обзор представляет собой краткое изложение последних изменений в российском законодательстве и не является юридической консультацией. За консультацией по конкретному вопросу следует обращаться непосредственно к юристу. Уайт энд Кейс Романов пер., д. 4 125009 Москва Россия + 7 495 787 3000 + 7 495 787 3001 Изменения в законодательстве о банкротстве Март 2015 ClientAlert Финансовая реструктуризация и банкротство В декабре 2014 г. были внесены изменения в Федеральный закон “О несостоятельности (банкротстве)” № 127-ФЗ от 26 октября 2002 г. (“Закон о банкротстве”).

Companies that plan to sell goods or services to a debtor in bankruptcy should be aware of a recent case decided by the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, holding that a trustee may avoid a debtor’s post-petition transfers of cash collateral if such transfers were made without the consent of the secured party or court order.1

The November/December 2007 issue of Insolvency Notes featured an article highlighting a Manhattan-based federal bankruptcy court's refusal to officially recognize proceedings commenced in the Cayman Islands to liquidate two Bear Stearns-managed hedge funds that collapsed in June of that year.

In National Energy & Gas Transmission, Inc. v. Liberty Electric Power, LLC (In re National Energy & Gas Transmission, Inc.),1 the Fourth Circuit held that, where an unsecured creditor receives payment from a non-debtor guarantor in partial satisfaction of a claim against the debtor, for purposes of the creditor's claim against the debtor, the creditor may not choose to allocate such payment to post-petition interest.

On September 14, 2020, the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recognized the Indonesian court-supervised restructuring plan for the Indonesian Duniatex textiles group ("Duniatex Group") under Chapter 15¹. Chapter 15 is a powerful and accessible tool for protection under the US Bankruptcy Code for non-US debtors facing litigation claims in the US.

All three institutions of the European Union have now approved the EU Preventive Restructuring Framework Directive. This is the EU's first attempt to "harmonise" insolvency laws across the Member States, that have disparate existing legislation. What does the Directive do and what will be its effect in practice?

The Directive

Overview

In IBRC v Camden[1], the Court of Appeal held that a lender's express contractual power to market a loan was not subject to an implied limitation that doing so should not interfere with the borrower's ability to obtain the best price for the assets securing the loan. In so doing, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed the "cardinal rule" that an implied term must not contradict any express term of the agreement.

Background