SUMMARY

The Court of Appeal of England and Wales (“CA”) made a significant ruling on two matters affecting the powers and duties of directors of English companies.

On January 17, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the “FifthCircuit”) issued a decision in In re Ultra Petroleum Corp. that could have significant implications for creditors seeking payment of contractual make-whole amounts and post-petition interest from chapter 11 debtors.[1]

Clarification by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) on Contracts

Case: Leibson Corporation and Others v TOC Investments Corporation and Others [2018] EWCA Civ 763 (17 April 2018).

The recent Court of Appeal decision in the case of Doherty -v- Fannigan Holdings Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1615 considers the issue of whether a failure to pay for shares, as provided for under an agreement between the parties is a debt on which a statutory demand can be based.

Summary

English law restructuring and insolvency tools are used to implement financial restructurings and the external administration of foreign companies. The attractiveness of the English tools and legal system is highlighted by the prevalence of companies incorporated abroad, especially companies incorporated in the EU, which avail themselves of those tools. English law in this area is impacted by much European law.

English Law Challenges to EU Bank Restructurings Firmly Closed off by U.K. Supreme Court

Summary – Decision of U.K. Supreme Court

On June 27, 2018, Judge Kevin Carey of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware ruled that a dismissal order in a bankruptcy case could provide for exculpation of the estate fiduciaries and their respective professionals. The ruling is a welcome result for all estate fiduciaries whose tireless efforts during a complex bankruptcy case fail to culminate in an approved plan of reorganization. Morrison & Foerster LLP represents the debtors in the matter.

Background

The Advocate General Kokott (AG) has given her opinion in Grenville Hampshire -v- The Board of the Pension Protection Fund [2018] (Case C-17/17). This challenges the level of compensation offered by the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) and could result in increased payments for members.

Background

Mr Hampshire initially brought the case to the Court of Appeal in July 2016, claiming that his pension was cut by 67 per cent when his company scheme was transferred into the PPF.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Merit Management Group, LP v.