Introduction

The issue in this case concerned the failure of a holder of a Qualifying Floating Charge (QFC) to give notice to a prior QFC holder before appointing administrators, therefore potentially calling into question the validity of the administration.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 of 15 July 2020 provided much needed clarity on the scope of the rule against “reflective loss”.

Section 546(e) of the US Bankruptcy Code, which Congress enacted to promote stability and finality in financial markets, provides a safe harbor against the avoidance of certain securities transactions. Since the safe harbor’s inclusion in the original Bankruptcy Code, Congress repeatedly has expanded its protections to a growing assortment of financial transactions involving an increasing array of parties, whose involvement in the transaction may give rise to a defense to certain avoidance actions, including constructive fraudulent transfer claims.

In Uralkali v Rowley and another [2020] EWHC 3442 (Ch) – a UK High Court case relating to the administration of a Formula 1 racing team – an unsuccessful bidder for the company's business and assets sued the administrators, arguing that the bid process had been negligently misrepresented and conducted.

The court found that the administrators did not owe a duty of care to the disappointed bidder. It rejected the claimant's criticisms of the company’s sale process and determined that the administrators had conducted it "fairly and properly" and were not, in fact, negligent.

The High Court has recently brought welcome clarity to how pensions are dealt with in the event of a bankruptcy, in the case of Lehane –v- Wealth Options and Brian O'Neill.

In recent years, it has become increasingly common for companies seeking to avoid an immediate winding-up order, particularly listed companies, to pray in aid of alleged efforts to restructure its debts in a bid to obtain adjournments of a winding up petition.

On 1 January 2021, new Dutch restructuring law Wet Homologatie Onderhands Akkoord (or WHOA) came into effect. Here, we run through what WHOA is and cover the first decisions handed down under the new law.

What is WHOA?

引言\

香港法例第 485 章《強制性公積金計劃條例》規定，僱員及僱主均須在強制性公積金計劃 （「強積金」）作出強制性供款，違例的僱主即屬犯罪，而強制性公積金計劃管理局（「積金 局」）可提出法律程序追討強制性供款。最近在 Re Hsin Chong Construction Co Ltd [2020] HKCFI 3160 一案中，法院探討了公司在清盤開始後支付的尚欠強制性強積金供款，是否可獲 法院認可。 

背景

經營建築服務的新昌營造廠有限公司（「該公司」）正在進行清盤。2018 年 2 月起，該公司 偶然未能為其僱員作出強制性強積金供款。積金局對該公司提出民事訴訟，並在該公司沒有抗 辯下就四項申索取得勝訴，可討回 2018 年 3 至 9 月的未付強積金供款合共港幣 958 萬元。

After Virgin Atlantic and Pizza Express achieved ‘too much consent’ and did not need cross-class cram down in the end, DeepOcean is the first judgment applying cross-class cram down as part of a restructuring plan.