In a recent decision, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals was faced with a situation that is the bane of any commercial and business attorney. A legal document contained an error. But in this case, the error was so extreme and obvious that the court was willing to reform the document to correct the error, in the face of other cases where courts refused to let parties escape from their mistakes. In re: Equipment Acquisition Resources (7th Cir., No. 1103905 decided on August 9, 2012)

Sultani Decrees  

Sultani Decree No. 43/2012

Amends some of the provisions of the Municipal Councils Law promulgated by SD 116/2011.  

Promulgated on 8 August 2012          Effective on promulgation.

Ministerial Decisions and Financial Publications  

Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries

Decision No. 177/2012  

EIOPA has published the outcome of its November 2011 consultation on draft Guidelines for Own Risk and Solvency Assessment (ORSA). ORSA is an internal risk management tool aimed at capturing and dealing with all risks that might impact on a (re)insurance company’s solvency. ORSA processes need to be proportionate and tailored to fit the company’s structure and systems. This report by EIOPA focuses on its expectations about what ORSA should achieve rather than on how it should achieve it.

In a recent important decision, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a trademark licensor could not use its bankruptcy to deny the rights of a licensee to use the trademark pursuant to a pre-bankruptcy agreement. (Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 11-3920, decided July 9, 2012) This decision creates a conflict among the federal circuits, which often means the U.S. Supreme Court must eventually decide the issue.

In the recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the “Ontario Court”) inRe Hartford Computer Hardware Inc.¹ (“Re Hartford”), the Ontario Court held that the public policy exemption in foreign recognition proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) should be interpreted narrowly.

One of the benefits to a corporate form of entity is the protection of shareholders from liability for obligations of the corporation. Of course, as we all know, there are still legal claims which could impose liability on a corporate shareholder for obligations of the corporation. In a recent case, a former executive of a corporation tried to assert a tortious interference claim against a majority shareholder, when it terminated severance payments that were owed to the executive. (Nation v. American Capital, Ltd., 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No.

In response to the July 2, 2012 Order of Rehabilitation, and an anticipated Order of Liquidation, against Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company and American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company (collectively, “Lumbermens”),1 we have prepared the following “frequently asked questions” guide summarizing issues related to: (i) the financial regulation of insurance companies; (ii) the liquidation and proof of claim process in Illinois; (iii) potential recovery by policyholders of the amount of “covered” workers’ compensation claims from state guaranty associations; (iv) policyh

FSA has made a statement explaining how the bank’s failure to comply with FSA’s liquidity guidelines as they applied to it was critical. It says that while the bank’s downfall was not directly due to the breaches, the breaches happened at a critical period for the financial markets and at a time FSA needed banks to keep it up to date on their liquidity. (Source: FSA Explains Liquidity Importance)

FMLC has published an addendum to its March 2012 paper on legal uncertainties arising from bail-ins. The addendum addresses the points the Commission made in a recent paper. (Source: FMLC Bail-in Addendum)

In Re JT Frith Limited [2012] EWHC 196 (Ch):

• the terms of an intercreditor agreement; and
• some unwitting help from the junior creditors,

enabled a senior secured lender to benefit indirectly from the prescribed part on the insolvency of its debtor.

Existing law at a glance

The Enterprise Act 2002 introduced the prescribed part under a new section 176A(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986. It reserves part of the floating charge recoveries for unsecured creditors.

Since then, the courts have held that: