Preamble

Most if not all of our readers will be aware of a recent spate of decisions in which the English courts have been prepared to sanction schemes of arrangements (SofAs) for foreign entities having a “sufficient connection” with England and Wales. The latest decisions in Re Magyar Telecom B.V. (03/12/2013) show just how flexible the English courts can be in finding such a connection.

The background

This update focusses upon two recent High Court decisions dealing with (respectively) the ability of the court to retrospectively extend court-appointed receiverships, and the issue of whether COMI had shifted to England for a German national seeking bankruptcy here.

Extension of court-appointed receiverships

The case of Bank of Ireland v (1) Edeneast (2) Cosgrove and (3) Maguire (17/09/2013) concerned an application by the bank to retrospectively continue and extend the appointment of a courtappointed receiver.

This update focusses on a range of issues affecting IPs from the past two months, covering the consultation on fees announced in February, the HMRC announced changes to the VAT deregistration regime, when accountants may be required to produce documents under Sections 235 and 256 of the Insolvency Act, and a recent Court of Appeal decision on when a company may be considered to be insolvent for the purpose of Section 238 actions

Consultation on the regulation of Insolvency Practitioners and IPs’ fees

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.

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).

On February 11th, the three private plaintiff-appellants and eleven 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) (the “Dodd-Frank Act” or the “Act”).

The Court of Appeal in Pillar Denton Ltd & Others v (1) Jervis (2) Maddison and (3) Game Retail Ltd ([2014] EWCA Civ 180) yesterday overruled previous High Court authority, deciding that rent should be treated as an expense of the administration based on actual usage and not on when the rent falls due. What does this mean for practitioners?

The background

Landlords will be relieved that the Court of Appeal has closed a legal loophole in a test case arising out of the administration of the Game group of Companies – Pillar Denton Ltd & 5 others v (1) Jervis (2) Maddison (3) Game Retail Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 180.

What happens to funds held in escrow when the paying entity goes into administration?

The background

Escrow mechanisms are familiar territory for most practitioners. The case of Bristol Alliance Nominee No. 1 Ltd and others v Neil Andrew Bennett and others [2013] EWCA Civ 1626 explores what happens when funds are held in escrow at a time when the paying entity goes into administration.