A recent Supreme Court judgement has confirmed that where an individual, Mr X, acts as director of company A, and company A is the sole director of company B, that will not necessarily make Mr X a “de facto” director of company B.

The Court decided that the mere fact of acting as a director of a corporate director was not enough to render the individual a de-facto director, “something more” would be required, such as the director holding himself out in correspondence as a director of company B.

Rainy Sky SA et al v Kookmin Bank [2010] All ER (D) 255 (May) In our Spring 2010 e-news we reported on the case of Kookmin Bank which dealt with the interpretation of a refund guarantee between Kookmin Bank (the “Bank”) and the customer of an insolvent shipyard. The Bank issued a refund guarantee to secure obligations assumed by its customer Jinse Shipbuilding (the “Builder”). The agreement required the Bank to repay on demand all of the instalments paid by the buyer, Rainy Sky, on the occurrence of a default event under the refund guarantee.

Section 113 of the Housing Grants, Construction & Regeneration Act 1996 (the 1996 Act) outlaws pay when paid provisions, with one exception. It is permissible for a Contractor to use a pay when paid provision to deny payment of outstanding amounts due to its Sub-contractor where the Client at the top of the supply chain has gone bust. The general consensus is of course that this exception is unfair. It is essentially asking the Sub-contractors to act as insurers of both the main Contractor and Client insolvency.

With the future of the New York City Off Track Betting Corp. up in the air, the New York Senate returned to the Capitol Tuesday, Dec. 7, to find itself in the middle of a long-standing battle between tracks and OTB corporations in the state.

Officials at the NYCOTB, which is in Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection, vowed to shut down the stateowned betting giant at midnight Dec. 7 if the Senate does not pass a reorganization bill already approved last week by the Assembly.

Case considering whether rent which accrued during an administration was payable in full as an expense of the administration or whether payment was a matter of discretion for the court.

Title II of the Act, designated "Orderly Liquidation Authority" – effective July 21, 2010 – establishes what is intended to be an orderly liquidation process for "financial companies" whose collapse or potential collapse are determined to constitute a risk to the financial system as a whole. Such systemically significant institutions would be liquidated under these new procedures, rather than being treated under existing bankruptcy laws. (The intent of Act is that most-failing financial companies will continue to be administered under existing bankruptcy laws.)

R (on the application of Global Knafaim Leasing Ltd and another) v. Civil Aviation Authority and another

With a growing number of projects facing financial difficulty, the importance of maintaining leverage for securing payment is greater than ever. The project itself remains a prime security target for any contractor, subcontractor or supplier for assuring appropriate attention is given to their claims and that payment will be forthcoming in a timely and unencumbered manner. Some very recent developments in the lien realm emphasize the ongoing attention that is being given to lien statutes and the opportunity they provide for maximizing those considerations of security and leverage.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in In re Philadelphia Newspapers LLC,1 has ruled that secured creditors do not have a right, as a matter of law, to credit bid their claims when their collateral is sold under a plan of reorganization. The Third Circuit held that secured creditors may be barred from credit bidding where a debtor's reorganization plan provides secured creditors with the "indubitable equivalent" of their secured interest in the assets. The court's ruling follows a similar ruling last year by the U.S.

Many of us in the construction industry seem to be hearing the same old bed time story over and over again: A instructs B to do the work; B does the work; A does not pay B; for months the parties dispute the level of payment due; B becomes fed up waiting for payment and takes steps to wind up A.

Is this the most appropriate way to deal with a disputed debt?