Key Points

• Court considers the impact of the Spanish Insolvency Act on guarantees governed by English law
• Court holds that the liability under the guarantee was not extinguished

The Facts

Key Points

• An administrator may be able appeal an order restoring a company following dissolution
• The court has jurisdiction to backdate a winding up order made following restoration to the date of dissolution
• The court must exercise its discretion to do so with extreme caution

The Facts

Client Connection Limited (“Company”) was placed into administration and Ms Sharma (“A”) was appointed as administrator. Following a pre-pack sale of the business of the Company, A moved the Company to dissolution.

Key Points

• Court considers the ownership of assets situated at premises owned by the bankrupt in the context of limited relevant evidence
• Court emphasises the importance of joining the correct parties to litigation

The Facts

Key points

• Section 236 (inquiry into company’s dealings) does not have extra-territorial effect
• Section 237(3) (examination) only has extra-territorial effect where appropriate machinery exists in the foreign jurisdiction
• Taking of Evidence Regulation not available where litigation not commenced or contemplated

The facts

Key Point

The mere fact that the law of the country in which an asset is situated does not recognise the trust concept does not necessarily invalidate the trust at least as far as English Courts are concerned.

The Facts

Key Points

• The principle of modified universalism (being the principle underlying the common law power to assist foreign insolvency proceedings) continues to exist
• There is a common law power to order production of information to assist foreign insolvency proceedings
• Common law assistance does not enable office holders to do something they would not be able to do under the insolvency laws by which they are appointed

The Facts

Key Points

• Court cannot grant relief under the UK Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (CBIR) where it could not provide such relief in a domestic insolvency.
• Even if such option were possible, court would not do so where a contract is governed by English law.
• Possibility of effectively applying provisions of foreign law under the CBIR restricted.

The Facts

Key Points

Where a sole director and shareholder of a company had breached fiduciary duties he could not ratify the breach if the company was insolvent;

Claims against the company in liquidation by dishonest assisting parties could not be set off under rule 4.90 Insolvency Rules against any liability they had in damages for that assistance.

The Facts

The German Parliament has, in response to the ongoing crisis in the financial markets, extended a legislation, which originally came into force on October 18, 2008, amending, inter alia, parts of the German Insolvency Code. These amendments, which had in certain cases lead to a relaxation of the obligation to file for insolvency, will now be valid without limitation in time. It can be expected that it will be published and come into force already this year.

Obligation to File for Insolvency

German insolvency law is governed by a comprehensive Insolvency Code which entered into force on January 1, 1999 and has been amended from time to time, the last major reform being the Act for the Further Facilitation of the Restructuring of Companies (ESUG) which largely came into force as of 1 March 2012. There is only one primary uniform insolvency procedure which applies to both individuals and companies. In the following, we focus on companies.