A recent application made by the insolvency practitioner of Agrokor, a major Croatian conglomerate, resulted in recognition in England of a stay of civil proceedings against the group. The purpose of the application was to halt any proceedings in relation to Agrokor's securities and debt obligations containing English law and jurisdiction provisions, pending the restructuring in the Croatian insolvency proceedings of the group's affairs.
Winding up petition struck out as an abuse of process where the court was not satisfied that the petitioner was a creditor.
Can a company file a notice of intention to appoint an administrator (NOI) if administration is just one of a number of potential options being explored for rescuing the company?
Are funds subject to an IVA if they are received by a debtor after a certificate of completion has been issued by the supervisor?
Should an administrator’s appointment be terminated where the motives of the appointor are improper but the statutory purpose of the administration can still be properly achieved?
In Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in Administration) v Exxonmobil Financial Services BV(1) the High Court considered a range of issues arising from the application of the close-out provisions of the standard-form Global Master Repurchase Agreement (GMRA) 2000.
On 22 April 2015 the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the case of Jetivia SA and another v Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others [2015] UKSC 23, which was heard in October last year. In short it decided that: 1) defendant directors cannot raise illegality as a defence to a claim by a company where the directors themselves acted wrongfully; and 2) a claim in fraudulent trading under Section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Section 213)has extra-territorial effect.
Background
Removal of requirement for sanction
Previously under section 165 IA 86, liquidators in a voluntary winding up would have to seek sanction of the company (in members’ voluntary liquidation) or of the court or liquidation committee (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) in order to exercise their powers to pay debts, compromise claims etc. SBEEA removes this requirement so that liquidators can exercise those powers freely. This will aid expeditious winding up of companies. Equivalent provisions have also been put into place for trustees in bankruptcy.
The recent judgment of Mrs Justice Proudman in Plaza BV –v- The Law Debenture Trust Corporation1 illustrates and extends a line of authorities in which the English courts have sought to narrow the scope of the mandatory application of Article 2 of the Brussels Regulation 44/2001. These cases are a reaction to the broad interpretation of the applicability and effect of Article 2 set out in the ECJ's decision in Owusu –v- Jackson2 , and attempt to confine the influence of that decision.
A look at the recent restructuring of the Co-operative Bank and EU proposals for mandatory reform
The Co-operative Bank announced in mid-June that it would need to carry out a forced listing of £300m new shares on the London Stock Exchange to fill a capital hole of around £1.5bn. Co-op's difficulties are said to have been triggered by mounting losses at Britannia Building Society - which Co-Op acquired in 2009 - that were highlighted when the bank failed to follow through on its planned acquisition of 632 Lloyds branches in February this year.