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.

Key Points:

Although they should always keep time-frames very much in mind, the decision in BKA Practice Co Pty Ltd gives liquidators greater scope to find all possible time-frames in which they have to work.

Key Points:

Complex cross-border issues can be dealt with relatively easily under the Cross-Border Insolvency Act as long as flexibility is built into the relevant orders.

There's been a drop-off, but Peter Bowden says things might be about to change.

Click here to watch video.

Key Points:

A DOCA can extinguish claims under a guarantee, even where those claims arise following the DOCA's termination.

If the underlying debt has already been extinguished by a DOCA, can a secured creditor still enforce the charge? A recent case explored the role of section 444D(2) of the Corporations Act in this situation, with implications for parties seeking to rely on guarantees from companies that have been through a DOCA (Australian Gypsum Industries Pty Ltd v Dalesun Holdings Pty Ltd [2015] WASCA 95).

Key Points:

Courts will limit an administrator's liability where proposed funding is to be used directly to advance an agenda consistent with the objects of Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act.

A recent decision of the NSW Supreme Court highlights the flexibility of Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act and the ability of administrators to seek orders protecting their interests and facilitating restructures, and was the first stage of what promises to be a novel and challenging administration (In the matter of Nexus Energy Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1041).