The current economy is bad for everybody, particularly small business owners who may not have an adequate equity base to draw on.
On January 6, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rendered a decision in the case of Riker, Danzig, Scherer, Hyland & Perretti v. Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors (In re: Smart World Tech., LLC) that clarifies the implications of a bankruptcy court's "pre-approval" of the terms of a professional's retention by the bankruptcy estate under Sections 327 and 328 of the Bankruptcy Code.
On 2 March 2007 the High Court handed down the first decision on whether non-domestic rates are payable by an administrator as an expense, and in priority to his remuneration, under Rule 2.67 Insolvency Rules 1986 ("IR"). The judge determined that rates in respect of occupied business premises are a "necessary disbursement" (Rule 2.67(f) IR) of an administration.
Although it was not argued, the judge also expressed the view that this liability to pay rates incurred during the period of the administration would be unaltered if the property were unoccupied during this time.
Smile Telecoms Holdings Limited (“Smile”), a Mauritian company, has recently had its second restructuring plan sanctioned by the High Court in England. The case contains some important markers for those involved in restructuring plans, particularly those plans which involve international elements or which seek to prevent out-of-the-money creditors from voting on the plan.
Background
This note provides an overview of the English restructuring plan, giving insight into when a foreign company might be able to restructure in England, an overview of the process and the advantages that a restructuring plan offers over other processes.
It should not be relied on as legal advice. Should you require legal advice in relation to your specific circumstances, please contact one of our team members whose contact details are at the end of this note.
What Is a Restructuring Plan ?
Last year the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (the Act) made both temporary and permanent changes to the UK insolvency laws.
As part of these measures, a provision was inserted into existing legislation which curtails the ability of suppliers to terminate supply contracts when a customer becomes insolvent (the so called `ipso facto regime').
Cass. Com., 10 mars 2021, n°19-12.825
Dans le cadre d’une procédure de liquidation judiciaire, un liquidateur a assigné directement et conjointement le dirigeant de la société et son assureur pour demander leur condamnation solidaire au paiement de l’insuffisance d’actif des sociétés sur le fondement des articles L. 651-2 du code de commerce et L. 124-3 du code des assurances.
Following on from part 1 of our predictions for 2021 for the UK restructuring market part 2 looks at CVAs, directors duties and HMRC and insolvencies.
We had hoped to cover off everything in 2 parts, but 2021 looks to be a busy year so we will publish the final part of this series next week.
Company Voluntary Arrangements – the continued evolution of the CVA
The temporary restrictions that prohibit winding up proceedings where non-payment is COVID-19 related, and restrict petitions based on unsatisfied statutory demands, that would have come to an end on 31 December 2020 have been extended until 31 March 2021.
What are the restrictions?
Statutory demands
Creditors cannot rely upon an unpaid statutory demand as evidence of inability to pay debts in order to issue a winding-up petition against a company, effectively rendering the statutory demand void for that purpose.
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