The English Court of Appeal has recently decided that a corporation that held shares in a company remained a shareholder notwithstanding the shareholding company's dissolution.

BWE Estates Limited had two shareholders: an individual named David who held 75% of its shares and a company, Belvedere Limited, which held the remaining 25%. Although Belvedere was dissolved in 1996, it remained listed as a shareholder in BWE's share register.

In the English High Court, the joint administrators of four English companies within the former Lehman Brothers group sought directions from the Court in respect of a proposed settlement. The settlement would put to rest substantial inter-company claims including those at issue in the 'Waterfall III' proceedings.

In a second application heard on the same day, Hildyard J considered an application by the administrators of Lehman Brothers Europe Limited (LBEL) for directions that would enable a surplus to be distributed to the sole member of LBEL while LBEL remained in administration. The proposed scheme had material benefits for both shareholders and creditors. The administrators acknowledged that the orders sought were an indirect means of circumventing the Insolvency Act 1986 (UK), which does not expressly provide for directors to make distributions during an administration.

The Court of Appeal has recently dismissed an appeal from the High Court's judgment (discussed in our September 2016 update) setting aside a compromise under Part 14 of the Companies Act 1993 after finding that the challenging creditors, who had voted against the compromise, had been unfairly prejudiced by the decision to call only one meeting of creditors.

In Day v The Official Assignee as Liquidator of GN Networks Ltd (in Liq) [2016] NZHC 2400, the High Court rejected a claim that the funding arrangement at issue constituted maintenance or champerty.

With the decision of 16 September 2015, No. 18131, the Court of Cassation settled a long-standing debate, ruling that the receiver can not terminate an agreement to sell real estate property, entered into by the company which is later declared bankrupt, if the purchaser has registered with the Land Registry, before bankruptcy, its claim to the Court to be transferred title to the property.

The immediate application of the new section no. 120 TUB and the scope of its anatocism prohibition is the centre of a case-law dispute which originated from a series of inhibitory proceedings promoted by a consumer association in order to make ascertain the unlawful capitalization practiced by Banks of the passive interests in bank accounts. Now that said interim proceedings has been defined a first summary can be drawn.

Two main interpretative options so far emerged: