It is always a bit of a challenge to write a new and fresh introduction to the International Restructuring Newswire. So, for this issue, I decided to seek help from Copilot, the new AI-powered chat mode of Microsoft. Given the profession of many of our readers, I asked Copilot: “what are the prospects for business financial restructuring professionals given the strong US economy coupled with the geopolitical problems around the world?” I really didn’t know what kind of answer to get from our AI friend—but you can judge for yourself:
While the strong economy provides opportunities, geopolitical complexities demand vigilance. Business financial restructuring professionals must stay informed, anticipate risks, and navigate uncertainty. Their role extends beyond numbers—it’s about safeguarding businesses in a dynamic world. Remember, adaptability and foresight are their compass in uncharted waters. – [citing to a KPMG article]
Not bad, but pretty generic and obvious. We offer something different in this issue: articles providing specific analysis of recent developments in the cross-border restructuring world from our lawyers in the US, UK, Netherlands and Canada. Not to shame my friend at Copilot, but I would think the information in these articles will be of greater value as you face real problems in the nonvirtual restructuring world.
I trust that you will agree . . .
Good reading,
Howard Seife
Global Co-Head of Restructuring
New York
Scott Atkins
Global Co-Head of Restructuring
Sydney
Publication
On 24 October 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) confirmed that the European Commission’s (the EC) 2009 decision, which imposed a (then record) €1.06 billion fine on Intel, was flawed as far as it found that loyalty rebates granted by Intel had anti-competitive effects.
Publication
The Dutch tax classification system for non-Dutch entities will undergo significant changes as of 1 January 2025.
Publication
In King Crude Carriers SA & Ors v Ridgebury November LLC & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 719 the Court of Appeal held that the claimant sellers (the Sellers) were entitled to claim the deposits promised under sale contracts as a debt despite the defendant buyers’ (the Buyers) breach of contract, which had resulted in the non-fulfilment of a condition precedent to the payment of the deposits.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023