In Mclean v Trustees of the Bankruptcy Estate of Dent [2016] EWHC 2650, the High Court considered the application of the equitable doctrines of marshalling and subrogation in relation to a fixed charge over (among other things) a dog.

A company and partnership borrowed funds from two sources – Barclays Bank and Lady Morrison. Barclays held, among other things, charges over farms owned by individual partners and an agricultural charge under the Agricultural Credits Act 1928 (UK), including a charge over a dog. Lady Morrison only held charges over the farms.

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.

A new milestone has been reached in the reform process of the Spanish Insolvency Act. On 25 May, the draft bill of the Law 9/2015, of urgent measures in insolvency proceedings, has finally been enacted as law. The new rule “validates” many of the modifications introduced by the latest Royal-Decree Laws, with some changes.
 

1. The reform and its drivers

We are witnessing an unprecedented review of Spanish Law 22/2003 on Insolvency Proceedings (Spanish Insolvency Act or “IA”).  With the recent approval of three Royal Decree-Laws (“RDLs”), namely RDL 4/2014, of 7 March, RDL 11/2014, of 5 September and RDL 1/2015, of 27 February), the Spanish legislator seeks to achieve three main goals: