In the course of implementing EU directive 2019/1023 of 20 June 2019 on preventive restructuring frameworks, the German legislator intends[1], among other things, to provide for (i) a Preventive Restructuring Plan as flexible restructuring tool, (ii) further relief in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic, and to make small but important changes to the general provisions of German insolvency code.
In brief
Statutory demand is a common and important tool in the winding up process. But recently, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance has reminded us that it is by no means a must.
On 29 September 2020, lawyers from Carey Olsen obtained adecision from the Commercial Court in the British Virgin Islands (BVIs), approving the use of third party funding (TPF) by liquidators in a BVI insolvency case.
In the latest saga concerning “covenants running with the land” and the rejection of midstream gathering agreements under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code (the Code), the Honorable Christopher Sontchi, Chief Judge of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court (the Court), issued three1 decisions holding that certain of Extraction Oil & Gas, Inc.’s (Extraction) gathering agreements with its midstream service providers did not create real property interests and, thus, that Extraction could reject such gathering agreements in its chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.
In the previous four articles in this series (see here) we looked at the key role of professional investors at startups, though also at the setbacks of the exclusive dependence of these types of companies on equity and the advantages debt would have for them. The environment, as we saw, is also a favorable one for borrowing. We described the difficulty to provide general recipes for getting debt and a few not very promising routes.
Earlier in the year, we published a blog regarding the impact of the moratorium introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020. In particular, we flagged that the moratorium may result in a significant loss of control for secured lenders and qualified floating charge holders (QFCH).
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.
In December of last year, we wrote about the Fifth Circuit’s two decisions – Ultra I, from January 2019, and Ultra II, from December, which replaced Ultra I – regarding make-whole claims in the Ultra Petroleum bankruptcy cases. That blog post provides important background for this one. You can find it here.