We're often asked to advise on what is the appropriate level of liquidated damages for delay in a building contract. Whilst this is a commercial issue and therefore outside the remit of legal advice there are some principles relating to the application of liquidated damages that we can bring to the parties' attention.

This is the message the courts are sending to office holders seeking approval of their fees. In two recent English High Court decisions, both handed down by HHJ Cawson KC, the courts clearly expect office-holders, as fiduciaries, to produce a sufficient and proportionate level of information to justify the level of fees being claimed.

The question of whether it is competent for the court to order a retrospective administration order has been the subject of much debate before the English courts. However, until now, there have been no reported Scottish decisions dealing with the point.

Shareholder disputes can often be complex and emotionally charged, particularly in small or family-owned companies where personal relationships and business interests are deeply intertwined. When such disputes reach an impasse, the law provides several mechanisms for resolution. In particular, disgruntled shareholders have the ability to bring statutory based claims against the company.

In its recent opinion in Raymond James & Associates Inc. v. Jalbert (In re German Pellets Louisiana LLC), 23-30040, 2024 WL 339101 (5th Cir. Jan. 30, 2024), the Fifth Circuit held that a confirmed bankruptcy plan enjoined a party from asserting certain indemnification counterclaims against a plan trustee because the party did not file a proof of claim.

Background

Whether a solar system is a “fixture” sounds like a mundane legal issue – but it has significant implications for the residential solar industry and for the financing of residential solar systems. If a system is regarded as a “fixture” of the house to which it is attached, then the enforceability and priority of the finance company’s lien on the system will be subject to applicable real estate law.

In a welcome clarification for administrators, the UK Supreme Court in the recent case of R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court[1], held that an administrator appointed under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) is not an “officer” of the company for the purposes of section 194(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA).

If your company is named in a new lawsuit or receives a EEOC charge, part of your review process should include checking to see if the filing complainant or plaintiff has a pending bankruptcy action. If so, the next step is to see if the claimant disclosed their lawsuit or administrative complaint in his or her bankruptcy petition. If not, you may have a successful estoppel argument.

In this client alert, we set out the key findings by the Court of Appeal in Darty Holdings SAS v Geoffrey Carton-Kelly [2023] EWCA Civ 1135, which considers an appeal against the High Court decision that a repayment by Comet Group plc (“Comet”) of £115 million of unsecured intra-group debt to Kesa International Ltd (“KIL”) was a preference under section 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”).

Background to the Case

Whilst commonplace in the U.S., uptier transactions in which a borrower teams up with a subset of creditors to issue new “super priority” debt by amending or exchanging existing debt documents, have not been widely used in Europe.

However, with increasing macro economic pressures and financial market instability, we may see more European borrowers taking advantage of flexibility in cov-lite debt documentation to implement liability management transactions as an alternative to, or even as part of, more formal restructurings.