Key Point
An "establishment" requires business and business activity to be carried out involving dealings with third parties and not simply acts of internal administration.
Facts
Key point
Pensions in payment were within the ambit of section 310(7) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the "Act"), but pensions not in payment were not payments to which a bankrupt was “entitled” as the right to draw had not been excerised. The court therefore refused to make an income payments order ("IPO").
The Facts
Key points
- Where main proceedings have been opened in one member state, secondary proceedings may be opened in another member state where the debtor has an establishment. The effects of the secondary proceedings shall be restricted to the assets in that territory.
- Local law and court discretion may apply to the opening of secondary proceedings and may be exercised, but these should not be discriminatory.
The Facts
Key points
Agreements relating to costs in the course of their office could not be set aside by liquidators subsequently appointed.
The facts
Key points
The court has jurisdiction to order the UK Registrar of Companies to replace previously filed administrators' proposals.
The Facts
The administrators of a company filed a statement of proposals with the Registrar but then sought to replace the proposals because they contained information that the company was obliged to keep confidential. The administrators argued that:
Key point
An English winding up does not cease to have effect when an overseas company is dissolved under the law of its state of incorporation.
The facts
Agrenco Madeira – Comercio Internacional LDA (the "Company") was incorporated under the laws of Portugal in March 2004. The Company presented a winding up petition in England in August 2009. Its centre of main interests was in Brazil and therefore the EC Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings did not apply. The Company was wound up in England as an unregistered company in October 2009.
Key point
Where in a UK administration an action would give some benefit to creditors, and risk neither detriment to them nor impede the administration's progress, the court may be willing to intervene and support a challenge to the administrator's actions.
The facts
Key point
An English scheme for a company that has a "sufficiently close connection" with the jurisdiction can be proposed albeit recognition in Poland is at the discretion of the Polish courts.
The Facts
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago has issued a decision with significant implications for licensees of trademarks whose licensors become debtors in bankruptcy. In Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC, the Court considered whether rejection of a trademark license in bankruptcy deprives the licensee of the right to use the licensed mark.1 Disagreeing with the holding of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Lubrizol Enterprises, Inc. v.
The Trustee overseeing the liquidation under the Securities Investor Protection Act (“SIPA”) of Lehman Brothers Inc. (“Lehman”) in the U.S. and the Joint Administrator of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (“LB Europe”) in the U.K. have reached an agreement in principle to resolve $38 billion in asserted claims among Lehman, LB Europe and subsidiaries and affiliates. The agreement is subject to definitive documentation and approval by the Bankruptcy Court in New York and the English High Court. The parties set December 15, 2012 as the deadline to reach a final agreement.