Directors of a company are subject to certain duties under the Companies Act 2006. These duties are of obvious importance throughout their service as a director but some of them become particularly important during the period leading up to the insolvency of the company.
On Dec. 18, Spain’s High Court said it would investigate claims of mismanagement by Abengoa creditors’ against the former chairman and the former CEO of the engineering and energy firm struggling with serious financial problems. In its ruling, the High Court asked Felipe Benjumea, the former chairman whose father founded the company, to post a bond of 11.5 million euros ($12.5 million) to cover potential liabilities within 24 hours.
The director at the heart of the Carrington Wire pension fund deficit saga has been disqualified for a period of 12 years.
Background
The suitability of the collective consultation regime under the Trade Union and Labour Relation (Consolidation) Act 1992 (“TULRCA”) in an insolvency scenario has always been a hot topic amongst insolvency professionals.
When the Supreme Court issued its decision in Baker & Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC in June, it caused something of a flutter in the bankruptcy community. The decision held that a professional could not recover for the fees it incurred in defending against objections to its fee application.
The Law 9/2015 includes the following novelties:
1. In Regard to the Insolvency Agreement
Law 9/2015 presents a series of novelties regarding the insolvency agreement, such as:
Section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code permits the subordination of certain claims to all claims or interests senior or equal to the security on which the claim is based. A recent Fifth Circuit opinion delineates the scope of mandatory subordination under Section 510(b).
Tomorrow the UK voting public goes to the polls to select the next government but do the Great British Public realise the effect of their decisions for Cross Border Restructurings and Business Reorganisation across the EU?
The Royal Decree-Law 1/2015 dated February 27, 2015 (the “RDL”) seeks to implement urgent measures to, among other things, reduce individual debtors’ financial burden.
In a split decision issued late last week, the Sixth Circuit overturned a Michigan district court’s disposition of a tort suit from North Carolina arising out of allegedly faulty breast implants. In noting that “a venue transfer is not alchemy,” the court also construed complex choice-of-law issues in light of the Bankruptcy Code.