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).
The ability of a bankruptcy trustee or a chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") to use "cash collateral" during the course of a bankruptcy case may be vital to the debtor's prospects for a successful reorganization. However, because of the unique nature of cash collateral, the Bankruptcy Code sets forth special rules that apply to the nonconsensual use of such collateral to protect the interests of the secured creditor involved. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Washington examined these requirements in In re Claar Cellars, LLC, 2020 WL 1238924 (Bankr. E.D.
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.
On May 21, 2020, the Québec Court of Appeal (QCA) released its reasons in Arrangement relatif à 9323-7055 Québec inc. (Aquadis International Inc.)[1](the Aquadis case).
In India, the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter referred to as ‘CIRP’) is governed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Code’). Insolvency laws in India provides for an expeditious settlement of insolvency cases, protecting the interests of the creditors through a balanced procedure, in a time bound manner. A financial creditor, an operational creditor and the corporate debtor are eligible to initiate the CIRP.