Introduction

While there has been much fuss over the recent ruling by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in In re Nine West LBO Securities Litigation¹ due to its potential ramifications for director liability, as we explored in Part I of our series on this case here, court watchers have paid less attention to the court’s treatment of officer liability and the interes

A recent decision of the Court has confirmed that the recipient of funds from an individual who is subject to a bankruptcy petition can be construed as having provided value where that value is given to a third party (and not to the bankrupt personally).

Roger Elford and Jessica Williams in the Corporate Restructuring and Insolvency team at Charles Russell Speechlys LLP acted for a successful Respondent, Howard de Walden Estates Limited, in these proceedings.

The Background

The Australian government has taken swift action to enact new legislation that significantly changes the insolvency laws relevant to all business as a result of the ongoing developments related to COVID-19

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.

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 city impounded the debtor’s vehicle for nonpayment of traffic fines. The debtor filed a chapter 13 petition and demanded turnover of the car. Section 362(a)(3) stays any act to “exercise control over property of the estate.” Section 542(a) requires one in possession of property of the estate to deliver it to the trustee. The most natural reading of section 362(a)(3) is that it prohibits affirmative acts that alter the status quo and does not impose an affirmative obligation on a party holding property of the estate to turn it over. Section 542(a) performs that function.

January 2021

BUSINESS REORGANIZATION & RESTRUCTURING YEAR IN REVIEW

In this publication, we take a look back at some notable restructuring transactions of 2020 and identify key legal issues and trends that will be relevant in 2021 and beyond.

Contents

3 UNITED KINGDOM

Recapitalisation of the Lecta Group

5 UNITED STATES

Debt Restructuring of Ligado Networks

7 UNITED STATES

Pre-Packaged Restructuring of Northwest Hardwoods Inc.

8 FRANCE

Air France-KLM Group's 7 Billion Aid

10 ITALY