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.
INTRODUCTION
In re Homebanc Mortgage Corp.,No. 07-51740-KJC, 2013 WL 211180 (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 18, 2013)
CASE SNAPSHOT
The Bankruptcy Court found that individual repurchase transactions having a purchase price of zero may fall within the definition of "repurchase agreement" under section 101(47) of the Bankruptcy Code provided that the master agreement governing such transactions acknowledges that each transaction constitutes consideration for every other transaction under the master agreement.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
MF Global, one of the world's leading broker/dealer firms entered into insolvency proceedings in both the US and the UK on 31 October 2011. US entities MF Global Holdings Ltd. and MF Global Finance USA Inc. filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Also on 31 October, the US Securities Investor Protection Corporation ("SIPC") initiated the liquidation of MF Global, Inc. a jointly registered futures commission merchant and broker-dealer, under the Securities Investor Protection Act ("SIPA").
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently issued a decision that has the potential to have a major impact on how contracts that provide for physical delivery of commodities are treated under U.S. bankruptcy law.
This alert has been prompted by a recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals that has a potentially huge impact on the treatment under U.S. bankruptcy law of contracts that entail a physical delivery of commodities. The decision is a positive development for those that had entered into a physically settled transaction with an entity which has subsequently become subject to a U.S. bankruptcy procedure as such transactions may qualify as a "swap agreement" and therefore fall within the "safe harbor" provisions of the U.S.