In the liquidation of corporate groups it is not uncommon for liquidators to be confronted by inter-company claims, including a multitude of potentially voidable transactions. Adjudicating on proofs of debt from related parties can be complicated, particularly where the liquidator is appointed to both parties.
After two recent judgments, liquidators should be aware that:
The U.S. Supreme Court recently handed down three rulings potentially impacting bankruptcy cases.
Nunc Pro TuncRelief
In Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan v. Acevedo Feliciano, No. 18-921, 2020 WL 871715 (U.S. Feb. 24, 2020), the Court circumscribed the use of nunc pro tunc ("now for then") orders that make relief ordered by a court apply retroactively to an earlier point in time.
The restructuring & insolvency Q&A series provides a comprehensive overview of some of the key points of law and practice of the regulatory environment in Luxembourg. Today's chapter focuses on insolvency.
What types of insolvency proceeding are available in your jurisdiction, and what are the benefits and drawbacks of each?
We now have further evidence of the court's willingness to act within the spirit of the Corporate Insolvency & Governance Bill ("CIG Bill").
This significant recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada confirms (i) that a CCAA supervising judge enjoys broad discretion and the necessary jurisdiction to prevent a creditor from voting on a plan of arrangement when the creditor is acting for an improper purpose, and (ii) that litigation funding is not intrinsically illegal and that a litigation funding agreement can be approved by the Court as an interim financing in insolvency.
Cette importante décision prononcée dernièrement par la Cour suprême du Canada confirme : (i) que le juge chargé d’appliquer la LACC possède un vaste pouvoir discrétionnaire et la compétence nécessaire pour empêcher un créancier de voter sur un plan d’arrangement s’il agit dans un but illégitime, (ii) que le financement de litiges n’est pas intrinsèquement illégal et qu’un accord de financement de litige peut être approuvé par la Cour à titre de financement temporaire en situation d’insolvabilité.
In a bid to assist struggling companies amid the uncertainty brought on by the pandemic, Hungary issued Government Decree No. 249/2020, which amends the Bankruptcy Code and gives companies breathing space while they explore options for rescue.
The changes created by the decree, which came into force on 29 May 2020, will be in effect only during the state of the emergency and include the following:
The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill introduces a new standalone moratorium procedure for companies. The moratorium is part of a package of significant legislative reforms contained in the Bill and intended to enhance the UK’s restructuring rescue culture. These were originally consulted on in 2018 and have now been fast-tracked to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic.
The UK Government has published the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the Bill) that proposes to make both temporary and permanent changes to UK insolvency laws.
As part of these measures, new provisions will be inserted into existing legislation to introduce a new debtor-inpossession moratorium to give companies breathing space in order to try to rescue the company as a going concern. This alert explores the impact of these moratorium measures on secured lenders, with a particular focus on the impact on qualifying floating charge holders (QFCH).