We are all accustomed to seeing change of control as a mandatory prepayment event, if not an event of default, under subscription line facilities. Even the strongest sponsors accept that a lender’s analysis of a transaction is based on the current management of the fund, such that any change in control should trigger at least the right to prepayment and cancellation. While there are often points for negotiation, this premise is almost universal.

In December 2018, NSW building certifier Watson Oldco entered into voluntary administration. The AFR reports that administrators have attributed the move largely to the result of uninsured exposure to potential claims arising from buildings with combustible cladding. Although there were no known claims against Watson Oldco, it was reported that there was uninsured exposure which led to the decision to place the company into voluntary administration.

The decision in Kaboko Mining Limited v Van Heerden (No 3)1 highlights the importance of considering carefully both the pleaded causes of action, as well as the underlying facts of a claim, to determine whether it ‘arises out of, is based upon or attributable to’ a particular event or circumstance that could trigger an exclusion.

Background

On November 30, 2018, Judge Nelson S. Román of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision affirming the dismissal of certain claims brought by senior secured creditors against junior secured creditors concerning the alleged breach of standstill and turnover provisions in an intercreditor agreement that governed the creditors’ relationship as creditors with recourse to common collateral. SeeIn re MPM Silicones, LLC, No. 15-CV-2280 (NSR), 2018 WL 6324842 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2018) (“Momentive”).

On November 8, 2018, Judge Vyskocil of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision dismissing the involuntary petition that had been filed against Taberna Preferred Funding IV, Ltd. (“Taberna”), a non-recourse CDO, thus ending a nearly seventeen-month-long saga that was followed closely by bankruptcy practitioners and securitization professionals alike. SeeTaberna Preferred Funding IV, Ltd. v. Opportunities II Ltd., et. al., (In re Taberna Preferred Funding IV, Ltd.), No. 17-11628 (MKV), 2018 WL 5880918, at *24 (Bankr.

On 13 September 2018, the UK Government published a guidance notice (Guidance) on handling civil disputes, including cross-border insolvencies, in the event that the UK exits the EU without having first agreed a framework for ongoing civil judicial cooperation, and from which time and date (11 pm on 29 March 2019) the UK will not benefit from the EU rules to replace the current arrangements.

In early 2017 we reported that following various scandals affecting business in the UK, the Government had made it clear that it intended to crack down on unacceptable boardroom behaviour.

A report published by the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee suggested that the existing law governing corporate governance did not require revision. However, the Committee recommended a number of measures including a voluntary code of corporate governance for large private companies.

In the recent decision of Orexim Trading Limited v Mahavir Port and Terminal Private Limited, the Court of Appeal has ruled that the Court does have power to permit service of a claim under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 outside England and Wales. However, in the circumstances of this case, the Court of Appeal declined to exercise its discretion to grant permission to serve the claim form outside the jurisdiction. HFW acted for the successful First Respondent, Mahavir Port and Terminal Private Limited (MPT).

Background

Briefings

Navigating the tension between private dispute resolution and insolvency class actions, March 2018

In Lasmos Limited v. Southwest Pacific Bauxite (HK) Limited1, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance dismissed a winding-up petition based on an unsatisfied statutory demand.

Briefings

A recent ruling by the English High Court in BILTA v RBS1, concerning EU Emissions Allowances (“EUAs” or “carbon-credits”) trading has re-opened the debate on when materials forming part of an internal investigation can benefit from litigation privilege. The decision further undermines the restrictive approach taken by Andrews J in SFO v ENRC2 when applying the “sole or dominant purpose test” to dual-purpose communications.

Background – Emissions Trading Fraud