Background

The English High Court has recently delivered judgment in the IMO Car Wash case (In the matter of Bluebrook Ltd and others [2009] EWHC 2114 (Ch)), in which the High Court considered whether to sanction three related schemes of arrangement for restructuring indebtedness proposed by the IMO Car Wash group to the senior lenders of the relevant group companies.  

Background

The performance of the UK manufacturing sector is one of the key indicators of the health of the UK economy as a whole. To what extent is the current stagnant growth in that sector a result of the impending EU referendum?

Directors of a company are subject to certain duties under the Companies Act 2006. These duties are of obvious importance throughout their service as a director but some of them become particularly important during the period leading up to the insolvency of the company.

On 14 September 2015, judgment was handed down in the case of Re SSRL Realisations Limited (In Administration), in which a landlord was granted permission to forfeit a lease by peaceable re-entry. The case will be of interest to insolvency practitioners and landlords alike – but for very different reasons.

Despite the fact that there have been no football club insolvencies in over two seasons, on 5 June 2015 the Football League voted to amend its rules on football insolvencies. The amendments to the existing rules were approved at the recent Football League Conference and will come into force from the start of the 2015-16 football season. They provide a range of changes to take a harder line on clubs (or their parent companies) that enter administration and to improve returns to creditors, both football and non-football related.

Creditors have the right to challenge the remuneration and expenses of appointed administrators through the Court. There is a procedure set out in Rule 2.109(1B) Insolvency Rules including a time limit by which such a challenge should be made.  The Court has a discretion to extend the time limit but in what circumstances will the Court exercise its discretion?

Summary

Following the US case of Morning Mist Holdings when a Court of Appeals decided that COMI had to be analysed on the date of the Chapter 15 case petition, we look again at the case of Kemsley where the US bankruptcy court held that COMI had to be analysed on the date of the filing of the UK bankruptcy. We consider whether this could have affected the outcome of the Kemsley case and look at the factors used by the English and US Courts to interpret an individual debtor’s COMI.

Background

The much awaited court decision on the status of Financial Support Directions (“FSDs”) and Contribution Notices (“CNs”) * issued by the Pensions Regulator against target companies after the commencement of English insolvency processes in respect of such targets was handed down by the court on Friday 10 December 2010. The reluctant decision of Mr Justice Briggs that FSDs and CNs in these circumstances were not provable debts but ranked as expenses of the insolvency process, taking precedence ahead of unsecured creditors, has caused dismay in the restructuring community.

In the current market turmoil, several banking and insurance names have already had to be rescued by government-brokered packages. It is therefore timely to review what rights institutional investors have in the event of counterparty insolvency. Unfortunately, the picture is complicated, not just because the question of how pension fund investors can get their money back may have an international dimension, but also because governments keep moving the goalposts on the availability and adequacy of compensation schemes.

Where does the claim arise?