In Rubin v Coote [2011] EWCA Civ 106 (09 February 2011) the Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of a liquidator to settle litigation against a former director of a company notwithstanding the opposition of the company’s creditors.

It is an age old problem for creditors who are faced with debtors who ask for more time to pay their debts. The Civil Procedural Rules (CPR) 14.9 and 14.10 allow for a debtor, following the admission of their debt, to request time to pay. It is open for a claimant to choose whether or not to accept a defendant’s proposals; if the claimant does not accept the defendant’s proposals, it is for the court to determine the time and rate of payment. The court’s discretion conferred by CPR 14.10 to extend time for payment has not, until now, been examined.

In what circumstances might an individual administrator be liable for discrimination against employees of companies in administration? This was the question the Employment Tribunal asked itself in the case of Spencer v Lehman Brothers (in administration) and others.

Corporate Debt Restructuring through a Company Voluntary Agreement

In the current economic climate most businesses will experience temporary or longer term cash flow pressure resulting in stressful trading and creditor pressure.

Since the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 were made in order to implement the European Union’s Council Directive 80/987/EEC, there has been an ongoing debate on how regulation 8 (7) (the bankruptcy proceedings exception) should be interpreted. Fortunately, a recent decision by the Employment Appeals Tribunal has gone some way towards clarifying the issue.

On February 28, Fitch addressed questions that have arisen related to the orderly liquidation authority under the Dodd-Frank Act and the securitization safe harbor. Fitch stated that clarifications from the FDIC provide comfort that the rights of investors can be determined at the outset of a securitization and that the ratings assigned to the transaction can be de-linked from those of the sponsoring entity.

On February 16, 2011, the Third Circuit affirmed a Delaware bankruptcy court's order determining the value of mortgage loans in the context of a 2006 repurchase agreement. Buyer Calyon argued that the mortgage loan portfolio sold to it by American Home Mortgage had a market price of only $670 million, as compared to its $1.15 billion contractual repurchase price, and that American Home Mortgage was required to pay Calyon the $480 million difference under a repo agreement.

On December 21, ISDA announced that it sought and was granted permission to intervene in the Lehman Brothers International Europe case in order to ensure that the arguments reflecting the market's interpretation of Section 2(a)(iii) of the ISDA Master Agreement were made before the court. The court agreed with ISDA that Section 2(a)(iii) is "suspensive" in effect. ISDA Release.

On December 29, 2010, the Honorable Mariana R. Pfaelzer denied a motion by Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP ("Plaintiff") to remand its claims against Countrywide and others to state court. Judge Pfaelzer concluded that the case was sufficiently related to a bankruptcy case to confer federal jurisdiction in light of contractual indemnification obligations of a bankrupt originator, American Home Mortgage Corp., to Countrywide. The Court also concluded that there were no equitable grounds meriting remand.

The implications of taking an appointment over an insolvent business which is regulated by environmental law can be far reaching. Environmental regulation has become more stringent and the sanctions for breach can leave the IP exposed to liability, including (amongst other things) costs sanctions.

The main environmental regimes referred to in this update are the contaminated land and water pollution regimes.