When trying to enforce security over property, it is important for a lender to consider the order in which the proceeds of sale will be distributed – a matter decided by the priority of any charges that exist. The general rule is that whichever legal charge is entered onto the charges register has priority, but this isn’t always the case.   

Scenarios where priority may be different 

McKellar v Griffin emphasises the importance for IPs of establishing the COMI of a foreign company before accepting an appointment as administrators. 

In McKellar (decided in June 2014) the court, on the application of a foreign liquidator, declared that the administrators’ appointment was invalid because the company’s COMI was not in England and Wales. So where does that leave unfortunate insolvency practitioners in similar situations? 

In March the Government announced new pension reforms. From April 2015 pensioners reaching 55 years will be entitled to draw down their entire pension pot, to do with as they wish. Pensions minister Steve Webb was famously quoted as saying that pensioners should be able to “buy a Lamborghini” with their pension pot if they so wish. And if pensioners subsequently ran out of money, well, they would have the state pension to fall back on, after all. 

Pension deficits are by no means the only concern for charities, but they present a severe headache.

There are over 180,000 charities registered in England and Wales, employing around 2,660,000. 
Between them, the Charities Commission has reported a combined pensions deficit of over £3.4 billion. For some charities, the burden of meeting that deficit puts too much of a strain on already stretched resources. 

In Quadrant Structured Products Co. v. Vertin, C.A. No. 6990-VCL, 2014 Del. Ch. LEXIS 193 (Del. Ch. Oct. 1, 2014), the Delaware Court of Chancery held that when creditors of insolvent firms assert derivative claims, they need not meet the contemporaneous ownership requirement applied to stockholder-plaintiffs.

A bankruptcy court in Pennsylvania recently held that trade creditors who supplied goods to a debtor prior to its bankruptcy filing were not entitled to administrative priority status under Bankruptcy Code section 503(b)(9) because the goods were “received by the debtor” at the time they were placed on the vessel at the port overseas more than 20 days before the debtor’s bankruptcy filing, although the debtor took possession of the goods within the 20 day period.  In re World Imports, Ltd. — B.R. —-, 2014 WL 2750258 (Bankr. E.D. Pa., June 18, 2014).

Successor liability is often a concern for the acquirer when purchasing substantially all of a seller’s assets.  While this risk is well known, the circumstances under which an acquirer will be found liable under the theory of successor liability are less clear.  The recent decision in Call Center Techs., Inc. v Grand Adventures Tour & Travel Pub. Corp., 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 29057, 2014 WL 85934 (D. Conn. 2014), sheds helpful light on this issue by defining the continuity of enterprise theory of successor liability.

A recent decision by the Court of Appeal (CA) in West v Ian Finlay & Associates (a firm) will, in the words of one colleague, “add spice to negotiations”. 

The CA held that a net contribution clause in a professional appointment was effective in limiting liability. The CA held that the clause was both “crystal clear”, noting that the facts of the case did not permit an alternative interpretation, and fair, that is within the meaning of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. 

Law360, New York (March 25, 2014, 1:21 PM ET) -- On Feb. 11, the three private plaintiff-appellants and 11 state plaintiff-appellants in State National Bank of Big Spring et al. v. Jacob J. Lew et al. filed briefs with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in their appeal of the district court’s decision that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).

On Feb. 11, the three private plaintiff- appellants and 11 state plaintiff-appellants in State National Bank of Big Spring et al. v. Jacob J. Lew et al. filed briefs with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in their appeal of the district court’s decision that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).