The English High Court has granted an injunction to trustees in bankruptcy and pierced the corporate veil of companies which were operated by a bankrupt as his agents and nominees and which held assets on his behalf (Wood and another v Baker and others [2015] EWHC 2536 (Ch)).

Background

Background – As Things Currently Stand

The aim of EC Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings 2000 (the Regulation) is to improve the efficiency of insolvency proceedings with cross-border implications. It provides, within the EU, rules for determining:

Background

As things currently stand

The aim of the EC Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings (1346/2000) (Regulation) is to improve the efficiency of insolvency proceedings with cross border aspects. It provides, within the European Union (EU), rules for determining:

Bankruptcy courts may hear state law disputes “when the parties knowingly and voluntarily consent,” held the U.S. Supreme Court on May 26, 2015. Wellness Int’l Network Ltd. v. Sharif, 2015 WL 2456619, at *3 (May 26, 2015). That consent, moreover, need not be express, reasoned the Court. Id. at *9 (“Nothing in the Constitution requires that consent to adjudication by a bankruptcy court be express.”). Reversing the U.S.

In the latest decision on COMI (Northsea Base Investment Limited & ors [2015] EWHC 121 (Ch)), the English Court had to determine the centre of main interest for a  group of companies registered in Cyprus, but where the operations of the companies were managed by a shipping agent in London.

The UK court recently considered the extent of s236 Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA 1986”) in the case of Re Comet Group Ltd (in liquidation); Khan and others v Whirlpool (UK) Ltd and another [2014] EWHC 3477 (Ch).

Following the Dec. 8 publication by the American Bankruptcy Institute (“ABI”) Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 of a report (the “Report”) recommending changes to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (“Code”),[1] we continue to analyze the proposals contained in the ABI’s 400-page Report. One proposal we wanted to immediately highlight would, if adopted, significantly increase the risk profile for secured lenders.

Key Points 

• Phones 4U went into administration in September 2014.
• Technology companies in the US have also faced a difficult market.
• Phones 4U’s complicated financing structure contributed to its downfall, as did its reliance on one or two key suppliers.
• The Protection of Essential Supplies Order will have considerable ramifications for tech suppliers when it comes into force.

PHONES 4U COLLAPSE: PART 1

In Re Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration) and others [2014] EWHC 704 (Ch), the High Court ruled on issues regarding the order of distributions and payments in the administration and potential liquidation of various Lehman entities. This wide-ranging judgment gives clarity on a number of previously uncertain issues.

Setoff provisions are commonly found in a variety of trading related agreements between hedge funds and their dealer counterparties. Last November, Judge Christopher Sontchi of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held that “triangular setoff” is not enforceable in the context of a bankruptcy case.[1] “Triangular setoff” is a contractual right of setoff that permits one party (“Party One”) to net and set off contractual claims of Party One and its affiliated entities  against another party (“Party Two”).