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
A Chapter 11 debtor’s reorganization plan purporting to cure a default under a pre-bankruptcy loan agreement must pay “the agreed-upon default rate interest,” consistent with “the underlying agreement” and the “applicable nonbankruptcy law,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on Aug. 31, 2015. In re Sagamore Partners, Ltd., 2015 WL 5091909, at *4 (11th Cir. Aug. 31, 2015).
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
Is market value sufficient proof of reasonably equivalent value for purposes of the good-faith-for-value defense under Texas law? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit certified that question to the Texas Supreme Court on June 30, 2015, after vacating its earlier decision in Janvey v. The Golf Channel, Inc., 2015 WL 3972216, at *3 (5th Cir. June 30, 2015).
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
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
- 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