In Uralkali v Rowley and another [2020] EWHC 3442 (Ch) – a UK High Court case relating to the administration of a Formula 1 racing team – an unsuccessful bidder for the company's business and assets sued the administrators, arguing that the bid process had been negligently misrepresented and conducted.
The court found that the administrators did not owe a duty of care to the disappointed bidder. It rejected the claimant's criticisms of the company’s sale process and determined that the administrators had conducted it "fairly and properly" and were not, in fact, negligent.
Alongside the permanent reforms to English insolvency law introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, the government introduced a temporary suspension of certain provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the IA) to address the economic turbulence caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
After the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (CIGB) was published on 20 May 2020, it raced through the House of Commons and House of Lords and, on 26 June 2020 (in under 6 weeks) came into force as the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA), with certain of the temporary measures taking effect from 1 March 2020.
How was the CIGB received?
The French Government made temporary changes to the insolvency law in order to protect companies, employees and managers from the cash flow consequences of the state of health emergency (Government order dated 27 March 2020 (No. 2020-341)).
When a debtor is in cessation of payments, it generally has 45 days from the 'cash-flow insolvency' to file for insolvency. The Government decided that the cash-flow insolvency of an enterprise shall be assessed based on its status on 12 March 2020 or the time of the expiry of the state of health emergency increased by three months.
In a recent decision, the German courts clarified the circumstances under which repayments on a loan not granted by a direct shareholder of an insolvent borrower could qualify as repayments on a shareholder loan, and therefore avoid being contested in insolvency proceedings.
Background
In 2015 oordeelde de Hoge Raad dat een curator met succes in verzet kan komen tegen een faillissement dat op eigen aangifte van de rechtspersoon is uitgesproken. Er was in dit geval sprake van een (bijna) lege boedel en er bestond geen verwachting dat er gedurende het faillissement nog activa konden worden gegenereerd. De curator zou de afwikkelingskosten van het faillissement daardoor niet vergoed krijgen uit de boedel, maar zou deze kosten zelf moeten dragen.
Key Points
A binding contract by exchange of email did not arise where parties were simply exploring a potential deal.
Sale by auction is often appropriate where an asset is difficult to value.
Where no differential treatment of creditors, unfair harm requires that a decision does not withstand logical analysis.
The Facts
In the German market, target companies are generally acquired out of insolvency through an asset sale. While this still holds true for the lion’s share of transactions, an increasing number of target companies are being acquired through a share sale.
The English High Court has sanctioned Smile Telecom Holding Limited's (Smile) restructuring plan, despite there being no parallel restructuring proceedings in Mauritius, the place of Smile's incorporation.
Background
Background
The crisis exit treatment procedure has been introduced to provide a temporary judicial procedure for debtors encountering difficulties related to the pandemic and the financing of their activities. This excludes debtors that are structurally in distress.
The procedure enables debtors to adopt a repayment plan within a three-month period to resolve the company's financial difficulties. The procedure is subject to the rules governing judicial reorganisation proceedings with certain adaptations and exclusions.