The new Insolvency Practice Direction 2016 has finally been given approval by the Lord Chancellor and came into force yesterday (25 April) bringing with it changes to reflect the new Insolvency Rules 2016 and recent changes to the CPR. The new practice direction replaces that of 2014 with immediate effect. Key changes include:
A recent ruling of the German Federal Civil Court (Bundesgerichtshof (“BGH”)) is a reminder of the risks which shareholders of a German company can face in an insolvency of their German subsidiary.
A recent decision by Bankruptcy Judge Stuart Bernstein, made in connection with plan confirmation in the SunEdison bankruptcy case, strikes down non-consensual third-party releases on a variety of bases. The decision analyzes issues regarding subject matter jurisdiction, the circumstances of deemed consent, and the applicable substantive requirements for a non-consensual release.
On September 27, 2017, the Senate passed the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2017. The Senate’s bill is intended to ease the burden on certain overworked bankruptcy courts and also increase bankruptcy fees in larger cases. The House of Representatives passed a different version of the bill earlier in the year.
In the recent case of Cherkasov & others v Olegovich [2017] EWHC 756 (Ch) the English courts considered the public policy exception set out in Article 6 Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (CBIR) and whether security for costs could be ordered against the official receiver of a Russian company (who had obtained recognition in England under CIBR) when he applied for an order for the production of evidence by some of the former managers of a Russian company under section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA).
The Insolvency Rules (England and Wales) 2016 (“IR2016”) came into force on 6 April 2016 applying to most corporate and personal insolvency regimes in England and Wales. However, there is still unfinished business for the Government and further regulation is expected to be introduced later this year to ensure the changes apply uniformly in all areas.
The Court of Appeal in Harvey v Dunbar Assets plc [2017] EWCA Civ 60 has confirmed that parties cannot re-litigate failed arguments that have previously been presented in bankruptcy proceedings.
This will be welcome news for creditors in situations where debtors rehearse the same arguments at several stages of the bankruptcy process in an attempt to deter enforcement by driving up legal costs and drawing out proceedings.
The facts
Parties in the construction sector seeking to enforce an adjudicator’s decision against a
company with the benefit of a statutory moratorium were given fresh guidance in the recent case of South Coast Construction Ltd v Iverson Road Ltd [2017] EWHC 61.
Facts
In September 2013 Iverson Road Ltd (“Iverson”) engaged South Coast Construction Ltd (“SCC”) to complete various building works in London. In June 2016 SCC halted the work for non-payment of sums due by Iverson.
It is not always easy to prioritize between the various goals pursued in every insolvency legislation, namely; the continuation of the company, preservation of the jobs, the general economic/public interest and the payment of dividends to creditors.
There is no clear hierarchy in French law amongst these major targets and French case law appears fairly pragmatic. However compared to Insolvency regulations in other countries, French legislation and French case law appear very protective of the interests of the employees.
This seems obvious when one considers, for example,
In a recent memorandum decision, Judge Robert S. Bardwil of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California sanctioned a Sacramento attorney and ordered him to complete a local e-filing course because he did not maintain copies of filed documents that included the original “wet” signature.