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.

El Real Decreto-ley 11/2013, de 2 de agosto, para la protección de los trabajadores a tiempo parcial y otras medidas urgentes en el orden económico y social, albergó diversas disposiciones de tipo so- cio-laboral, algunas de ellas referidas a reestructu- raciones laborales en empresas concursadas.

Quienes reclaman contra alguna medida colectiva de reestructuración (despidos, suspensiones, modificaciones sustanciales, movilidad geográfica, descuelgues de convenio) suelen denunciar que durante el período de consultas no se ha negociado de buena fe. Cuando las sentencias consideran que así ha sucedido declaran la nulidad de la correspondiente decisión, por disponerlo la Ley. Aunque suele pensarse en la negociación ex fide bona como deber de la empresa, hay que recordar su carácter bilateral.