Se trata de un sumario y elocuentememo firmado por dos juristas de Kirkland & Ellis LLP, London, y publicado enInternational Corporate Rescue, vol. 15, issue 6, 2018, que resumo en lo que importa. Siempre suponiendo un hard Brexit. (1) Los tribunales de UK no reconocerán —salvo implementación por UK de la Ley Modelo de UNCITRAL— procedimientos de insolvencia extranjeros si afectan a titulares de créditos sometidos a Derecho inglés que disienten del acuerdo y no estuvieron presentes en el procedimiento extranjero.

Análisis GA&P | Julio 2015 1 N. de la C.: En las citas literales se ha rectificado en lo posible —sin afectar al sentido— la grafía de ciertos elementos (acentos, mayúsculas, símbolos, abreviaturas, cursivas...) para adecuarlos a las normas tipográficas utilizadas en el resto del texto. 1.

1.  The characterisation of art. 1(1) ERIP and role of the Annex

Mr Justice Zacaroli has handed down his judgment in Hurricane Energy plc [2021] EWHC 1759 (Ch).

Summary

• The Court declined to approve the cross-class cram down of Hurricane’s shareholders as part of the Part 26A restructuring plan because the available evidence did not demonstrate that the shareholders were “no worse off” as a result of the restructuring plan. On that basis the restructuring plan failed.

The UK has introduced a new restructuring tool, the Restructuring Plan, which when coupled with other provisions of the new law creates the possibility of the management of a company in financial difficulty remaining in control of a process designed to turn the company around as a going concern whilst in many cases having the benefit of a moratorium. Sounds a little like Chapter 11 in the US?

We examine whether the Restructuring Plan will offer aviation companies in the UK (and elsewhere?) a potential route to deal with the difficulties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Introduction

The decision of ICC Judge Barber in the case of Stephen Hunt & System Building Services Group Limited -v- Brian Michie & System Building Services Group Limited [2020] EWHC 54 (Ch) was recently handed down and it is an interesting decision about directors’ duties post the appointment of an administrator or liquidator.

Facts

The facts are quite involved and matter specific, and gave rise to a number of issues, but for present purposes the key issues are as follows.

A recent TCC decision has ruled that adjudication proceedings cannot be brought by companies in liquidation in relation to financial claims under a construction contract. The decision will have considerable ramifications for the practical management of liquidations for companies with exposure to construction contracts. The decision would appear to run contrary to current liquidator practice, both as to the use of adjudication proceedings in liquidations and as to the assignment of claims to third parties, but essentially only confirms the mandatory nature of insolvency set-off.

In an important judgment, the High Court has tackled the question of whether an impecunious claimant can defeat a defendant’s application for security for costs on the basis that it has ATE insurance in place.

On 26 March 2015, the Deregulation Bill and the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill received Royal Assent.  These Acts make a number of important changes to the law affecting directors, insolvency law and regulation. 

The changes affect (among other things) directors’ liabilities, the powers of administrators and the rights of creditors. While some changes are relevant to all those advising companies and directors, others are of interest principally to insolvency officeholders.

The Supreme Court has handed down its highly anticipated judgment in the joint Nortel Networks/Lehman Brothers appeal.  The administrators of Nortel and Lehman Brothers entities had appealed against the Court of Appeal’s decision that Financial Support Directions (FSDs) issued by the Pensions Regulator (“the Regulator”) after the appointment of administrators attracted priority status as an administration expense.  Rejecting the decision of the lower courts, the Supreme Court ruled that an FSD issued during the course of an administration will rank as a provable debt rather than a