Fulltext Search

Key points

  • Information obtained by compulsion can be shared between officeholders of connected estates (parent/subsidiary)

  • There must, however, be a possibility that there will be a surplus in the subsidiary estate

  • The prospect must be real as opposed to fanciful

The facts

Key points

  • Court reiterated circumstances in which it will sanction a proposed course of action by administrators

  • Requirement that the course of action be “particularly momentous”

  • Court sanctioned proposed settlement in the circumstances

The Facts

Key Points

  • Floating charge is valid even where there are no unencumbered assets at the time it is taken
  • Crystallisation of prior ranking floating charge does not impact enforceability of second ranking floating charge

The Facts

Background

Under German law, when a company becomes insolvent or over-indebted, its directors are obliged to file for insolvency. If they fail to fulfil this duty, according to s 64 German limited liability company Act (GmbHG) from this point in time onwards, they have to compensate the company for those payments which (objectively) would not have been made by a prudent businessman. Such imprudence is presumed.

In practice, s 64 is one of the most powerful tools available to insolvency administrators claiming against directors.

Key Points 

  • Directors cannot file a notice of intention to appoint (NoI) without a ‘settled intention’ to appoint an administrator
  • NoIs cannot be used where there is no qualifying floating charge holder (QFCH)
  • The judgment has implications for validity of appointments where requirements not met

The Facts

The reform of the European insolvency regulation (EIR) comes into force in mid-2017. Inter alia, it will alter the rules on which jurisdiction is competent to open insolvency procedures.

Legal Background

If a debtor needs to file for insolvency, there are two main ways of manipulating the existing legal competence rules:

Key Points 

  • Claims against Kaupthing could not be pursued in the English courts
  • No implied restriction on jurisdictional effect under the Winding-up Directive
  • Position analogous to Judgments Regulation and Insolvency Regulation

The Facts