In September 2023, the insolvency administrator of the insolvent Wirecard AG began reclaiming dividend distributions for 2017 and 2018 from shareholders. This is following a judgment of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in March 2023 (BGH judgment of March 30, 2023 – IX ZR 121/22). In that judgment the BGH ruled that in the event of a company’s insolvency, the insolvency administrator can demand back dividend payments made to shareholders for up to four years pursuant to section 134 (1) of the Insolvency Code (InsO).

Last week marked another instalment in the notorious insolvency of Comet Group plc (Comet) when the Court of Appeal unanimously set aside the decision of the High Court at first instance which, at the time, was claimed to be the largest successful preference claim in value, resulting in Darty Holdings SAS (successor to Kesa International Ltd (KIL)) being ordered to pay approximately GBP90 million to the liquidators of Comet.

The Court of Appeal has unanimously overturned an unlawful preference ruling from the High Court, finding instead that the repayment of inter-company debt did not amount to a preference because, at the time the operative decision to make the repayment occurred, there was no desire to prefer.

Beware of Demand Letters

An immediate concern for any company is a threat to present a winding up petition made in an email or letter – regardless of the size of debt, whether the debt is disputed or the company has a counterclaim.

The consequences of ignoring such a threat can have an immediate and adverse impact on a business. Failure to respond can be used as evidence that the company is unable to pay and that can be used as evidence to support presentation of a winding up petition.

In this second part of our blog exploring the various issues courts need to address in applying the Bankruptcy Code to cryptocurrency, we expand upon our roadmap.

In a case that unfolded on May 1, 2018, the Supreme Court of New South Wales ordered the winding up of Day & Night Online Transport Pty Ltd. This was ordered because of the company’s failure to comply with a statutory demand from a creditor, as outlined in section 459C(2)(a) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). However, what followed was a legal journey that ultimately resulted in the rescission of the winding-up order, shedding light on critical aspects of corporate insolvency and the legal processes involved.

Background: The Winding-Up Order

It has long been established that where the circumstances in which funds are advanced by a shareholder to the company in which they own shares is unclear, the court must consider the "surrounding circumstances" when determining how to characterize the advance. Historically, "surrounding circumstances" were understood to be the circumstances extant at the time the transaction was effected: (e.g., Ghassemvand v. Premium Weatherstripping Inc., 2017 BCCA 309 [Ghassemvand]).

Following its acquisition of the Regal cinema chain in the US in 2018, Cineworld, with its English-incorporated parent company, London premium listing and status as a household name in the UK cinema industry, became a truly transatlantic business. Add that to its businesses in Central and Eastern Europe and Israel, and Cineworld is one of the largest cinema chains in the world, operating in 10 countries with 672 sites and 8,181 screens.

In Svenhard’s Swedish Bakery v. United States Bakery, Bk. No. 19-15277, 2023 WL 5541420 (9th Cir. Aug. 29, 2023), the Ninth Circuit held that a settlement agreement that resolved an employer’s withdrawal liability to a multiemployer pension fund was not an executory contract that could be assumed and assigned to a third-party when that employer subsequently filed for bankruptcy. The decision is instructive for multiemployer funds and employers that negotiate settlement agreements to resolve these types of liabilities.

Background

The implementation, just over a year ago, of Directive (EU) 2019/1023 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on Preventive Restructuring Frameworks, has meant a real Copernican shift in Spanish insolvency law. In particular in the field of pre-bankruptcy law, as it has established a new model based on Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Act in substantive law and UK Schemes of Arrangement in procedural law.