As we have recently highlighted and discussed in depth elsewhere in relation to the UKCS (click here), the confidence of North Sea oil & gas contractors is at an all-time low.

In The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Amran Munir and others [2015], the directors and secretary of a company were sentenced by the High Court to a term of imprisonment for contempt of court.

Summary

In John David Hedger (the Liquidator of Pro4Sport Ltd) v David Adams [2015], the Liquidator of Pro4Sport Ltd (Pro4Sport) made an application to the Court under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The claim arose out of one transaction which took place shortly before the liquidation of Pro4Sport on 20 July 2012. On 25 June 2012 Mr Adams, on behalf of Pro4Sport, transferred all, or practically all, of the assets of Pro4Sport to an associated company, Pro4Sport.co.uk Ltd (Pro4Sport.co.uk) for a deferred consideration of £47,000 plus VAT.

In Ferreira da Silva e Brito and others v Estado portuges (C-160/14) the European Court of Justice (the ECJ) considered the meaning of a "transfer of a business" under the Acquired Rights Directive (the Directive) in relation to a situation whereby a majority shareholder assumed significant functions of a former subsidiary, which had been wound up.

Background

A number of headlines following a recent high-profile professional negligence case suggest that there is no duty on a purchaser’s conveyancer to check a seller’s solvency. It is, of course, part of the normal pre-contract searches and enquiries to check on the solvency of the seller, and in the majority of cases, the property solicitor will become aware of the seller’s bankruptcy, as a notice or restriction on the title will show up on the official search of the registered title.  

Solvent

The Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued a noteworthy opinion for those whose work involves real estate mortgage conduit trusts (REMIC trusts) or utilization of the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbor” provisions. In In re MCK Millennium Ctr. Parking, LLC,¹ Bankruptcy Judge Jacqueline P.

Bankruptcy Judge Christopher S. Sontchi recently ruled in the Energy Future Holdings case¹ that the debtor will not be required to pay the $431 million “make whole” demanded by bondholders upon the debtor’s early payment of the bonds.²

In what may become viewed as the de facto standard for selling customer information in bankruptcies, a Delaware bankruptcy court approved, on May 20, 2015, a multi-party agreement that would substantially limit RadioShack’s ability to sell 117 million customer records.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Wellness International Network Ltd. v. Sharif confirms the long-held and common sense belief that “knowing and voluntary consent” is the key to the exercise of judicial authority by a bankruptcy court judge.1 In short, the Supreme Court held that a litigant in a bankruptcy court can consent—expressly or impliedly through waiver—to the bankruptcy court’s final adjudication of claims that the bankruptcy court otherwise lacks constitutional authority to finally decide.

On May 6, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered whether so-called“Deprizio waivers,”¹ where an insider guarantor waives indemnification rights against a debtor, can insulate the guarantor from preference liability arising from payments made by the obligor to the lender. The Ninth Circuit held that if such a waiver is made legitimately—not merely to avoid preference liability—then the guarantor is not a “creditor” and cannot be subject to preference liability.