William Fry understands that, on 30 January 2017, having regard for the recent implementation of the Solvency II regime, EIOPA's Board of Supervisors adopted a decision (the "Decision") which will replace EIOPA's General Protocol relating to the collaboration of the insurance supervisory authorities of the Member States of the European Union (March 2008 Edition).
We understand that the Decision with replace the General Protocol as of 1 May 2017 (and will be available on EIOPA's website shortly).
In the interim, the General Protocol (March 2008 Edition) continues to apply.
There are numerous reasons why a company might use more than one entity for its operations or organization: to silo liabilities, for tax advantages, to accommodate a lender, or for general organizational purposes. Simply forming a separate entity, however, is not enough. Corporate formalities must be followed or a court could effectively collapse the separate entities into one. A recent opinion by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts, Lassman v.
The linked Mintz Levin client advisory discusses a recent Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that held a “make-whole” optional redemption premium to be due upon a refinancing of corporate debt following its automatic acceleration upon bankruptcy.
In a recent decision (“Energy Future Holdings”) poised to have wide-reaching implications, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decisions of the Bankruptcy and the District Courts to hold that a debtor cannot use a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing to escape liability for a “make-whole” premium if express contractual language requires such payment when the borrower makes an optional redemption prior to a date certain.
The Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court ruling from 2015 that a former director of a car dealership was personally liable to a customer who paid the company for three vehicles in the weeks prior to the company's liquidation where the cars were ultimately not delivered to the customer due to the company's liquidation.
Background
Imagine you are the CEO of company sitting across from an interviewer. The interviewer asks you the age old question, “So tell me about your company’s strengths and weaknesses?” You start thinking about your competitive advantages that distinguish you from competitors. You decide to talk about how you know your customers better than the competition, including who they are, what they need, and how your products and services fit their needs and desires. The interviewer, being somewhat cynical, asks “Aren’t you worried about the liabilities involved with collecting all that data?”
A recent opinion issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois reminds us that corporate veil-piercing liability is not exclusive to shareholders. Anyone who is in control of and misuses the corporate structure can be found liable for the obligations of the corporation. The facts of this case, however, did not support personal liability for veil-piecing.
A declaration sought by the Liquidator of an insolvent company that certain payments made to a director constituted fraudulent preference has been refused by the High Court in FF Couriers Limited & Companies Acts: Keane -v- Day & ors [2016] IEHC
In an earlier blog piece we reported on the Third Circuit’s 2015 decision in In re Jevic Holding Corp. where the Court approved a settlement, implemented through a structured dismissal, which allowed junior creditors to receive a distribution prior to senior creditors being paid in full.
Today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trustputs an end to one of Puerto Rico’s multi-pronged efforts to deleverage itself.