As reported in our recent e-update on the case of Echelon Wealth Management Limited (in liquidation), Lord Glennie has determined that liquidators who are removed from office have no right to retain assets as security for remuneration and costs. Lord Glennie then went on to consider how the court, in determining the level of a liquidator’s remuneration, should view the conduct of the liquidator.
In a recent case in relation to the liquidation of Echelon Wealth Management Limited ("E"), Lord Glennie has decided that upon removal as liquidator, a former liquidator may not retain from the assets of the liquidated company any sum as security for costs.
The Facts
S&C were appointed joint liquidators of E at a creditors meeting on 16 December 2008. At a creditors meeting on 22 July 2009, they were then removed from office with new joint liquidators being appointed.
The International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. (“ISDA”) is preparing forms of amendment to its boilerplate master agreements in connection with market practice relating to the suspension of payments by a non-defaulting party. ISDA is also considering a protocol to implement the amendments into existing agreements on a multilateral basis.
In its ministerial statement this week in relation to its consultation on the proposals for a restructuring moratorium, the Government has indicated that it now proposes to consider implementing measures to tackle the unreasonable use of termination clauses in insolvencies.
What Are Termination Clauses?
Termination clauses are, of course, found in most commercial agreements and are a means by which a party may terminate an agreement on the occurrence of certain events (invariably including insolvency of the other party).
In the recent English Court of Appeal case of Rubin v Coote, the court allowed a liquidator to settle litigation without having obtained the agreement of all creditors to the compromise.
The Facts
On April 18, the FDIC released a report examining how it could have structured an orderly resolution of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. using the orderly liquidation authority under Title II of theDodd-Frank Act. FDIC Release.
On April 21, the Fed issued a request for public information and comment on two bankruptcy-related studies required under the Dodd-Frank Act. One study will focus on the resolution of financial companies in Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and the other will focus on international coordination of the resolution of systemically important financial companies under the Bankruptcy Code and applicable foreign law. Comments must be submitted within 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
On March 16, 2011, plaintiffs in ABN Amro Bank, et al. v. MBIA Inc., et al. filed their opening brief in the New York Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs are appealing the 3-to-2 decision of an intermediate appellate court dismissing their suit challenging the "fraudulent restructuring" of monoline insurer MBIA. The case, brought by a group of banks that are beneficiaries of MBIA's structured finance-related policies, claims that MBIA transferred $5 billion in assets from MBIA Insurance Corporation (a failing subsidiary) to MBIA Illinois (a stronger subsidiary).
The recent Court of Session case of Tayplan Limited (in administration) v Smith, is particularly interesting as it is a case where the administrator chose to pursue directors for breach of fiduciary duties rather than using any of the more common statutory remedies.
The Facts
Tayplan Limited was a family business with two directors - Mr Smith senior and Mr Smith junior. Mr Smith senior and his wife each held 50% of the shares in the Company.
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.