Of general interest is the appeal in the case of Horton v Henry, on which we reported in our January 2015 update. In Horton, the High Court declined to follow a previous ruling, and decided that a bankrupt could not be compelled to access his pension savings to pay off creditors.

As we noted in Parts 1 and 2 of this series, any buyer of assets from a company in any degree of financial stress should be concerned about the transaction being attacked as a fraudulent transfer. Officers and directors of a selling entity also have concerns about this risk due to potential personal liability.

Introduction

In this Banking Reform updater we examine the single resolution mechanism (SRM), which together with the single supervisory mechanism (SSM) (Banking Reform updater 10) forms the key pillars of the EU Banking Union.

What is the SRM?

This is a continuation of Part 1, discussing a number of published and unpublished decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit (the “BAP”) that impact both consumer and business bankruptcy practice throughout the circuit.

Declining to follow a 2012 decision, the High Court has ruled that a bankrupt’s unexercised rights to draw his pension did not represent income to which he was entitled within the meaning of the Insolvency Act 1986, and so did not form part of the bankruptcy estate.

Background

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit (the “BAP”) issued a number of published and unpublished decisions in the fourth quarter of 2014 that impact both consumer and business bankruptcy practice throughout the circuit.

The process of repossession will involve complex issues of fact and law. Each one is different depending upon the jurisdiction involved, the approach of the operator and the attitude of the relevant authorities.

Information and planning

As discussed in Part 1 and Part 2 of this series, any buyer of assets from a company in any degree of financial stress should be concerned about the transaction being attacked as a fraudulent transfer.

1. What is the risk if a counter-party is located in an exiting member state?

What might be the funding risk?

A member state exit is likely to result in increased liquidity problems and less available funding as financial institutions manage their exposure to the Eurozone. Businesses may find that traditional sources of finance (loans, bonds etc) are less easy to obtain or raise.

Intra group funding may also be problematic if there are intra-company loans to subsidiaries located in risk member states and those subsidiaries are having difficulty meeting their payment obligations under such loans.