A recent New South Wales Court of Appeal decision gives further guidance as to whether a cap on an administrator's remuneration precludes them from seeking a review under section 449E(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Partner Michael Quinlan and Lawyer Clementine Allan report. http://www.aar.com.au/pubs/insol/foinsol12oct10.htm?email=true

It will come as no shock to readers, particularly my fellow members of INSOL Europe's Anti-Fraud Forum, that we are all being defrauded.

The new UK Bribery Act will be brought into force in April 2011. You may think: so what, I am in Hong Kong? It is not, however, just UK companies that are at risk. Any overseas company carrying on a business, or part of a business, in the UK can commit the offence of failing to prevent bribery, irrespective of where the bribe is paid or received.

The Law Reform Commission (LRC) published a 443 page Paper on personal debt management and debt enforcement in Ireland in September 2009 and an Interim Report in May 2010. In the 2009 Paper, the LRC reviewed, in a comprehensive way, the law of personal insolvency in Ireland, exposing how the current law evolved to deal with bankruptcy and insolvency of traders, but concluded that it is both inappropriate to and unsuitable for dealing with the more recent emergence of large scale non trader / consumer insolvency.

In the course of several decisions German courts have pondered this question. The decisions were based on lawsuits of different national insurance holders against one and the same British insurance company who had implemented scheme proceedings. The company claims to have reached an ultimately binding understanding with its insurance holders. Due to the specialties in insurance law, the already mentioned Insolvency Regulation is not applicable. Thus, the courts did not have to deal directly with the Regulation when considering the acknowledgement of scheme proceedings in Germany.

In the matter “La Seda de Barcelona SA”, the English High Court of Justice decided on the international competence of English courts for the implementation of a “scheme of arrangement” with respect to multinational or foreign companies. The question had arisen, if Scheme proceedings according to English law can be applied on a company which was founded according to Spanish law. The decision concerned a Spanish holding company which also has subsidiaries in Great Britain. The company had been going through a crisis and intended to obtain new capital by way of restructuring.

The English legal concept “scheme of arrangement” is an action under corporate law, which is now defined by part 26 of the English Company Act 2006 and which permits flexible agreements between companies and their creditors in the context of company restructuring. One of its characteristic traits is that no unanimous decision of the creditors is necessary for its acceptance, but that it can be achieved by way of a majority decision.

EUROPEAN UPDATE: (citation: Adam Gallagher, The Growth of Schemes of Arrangement as the Tool of Choice in Complex Restructurings, XXIX ABI Journal 8, 36, 86-88, October 2010) - Adam Gallagher

Employers are constantly faced with difficult decisions when it comes to their employees. One issue which has troubled employers is when dealing with the disciplinary process of an employee who has raised a grievance. This often causes confusion. http://www.salans.com/~/media/Assets/Salans/Publications/2010/20100906%20Old%20Brewery%20disciplinary%20case.ashx

Sending employees to work abroad raises many legal issues – not least the question of whether these individuals retain the right to claim unfair dismissal in the UK. This is rarely straightforward, since the employee or the employment relationship may be subject to different legal jurisdictions at different times. http://www.salans.com/~/media/Assets/Salans/Publications/2010/20100917-%20UK%20Dismissals%20Overseas.ashx