Two recent opinions from separate federal courts of appeal upheld the dismissal of lawsuits by sophisticated investors that suffered losses in the auction rate securities ("ARS") market against the securities broker-dealers that allegedly fraudulently induced the purchase of the ARS.1

On 17 May 2011, the GC annulled a Commission decision requiring recovery of state aid from Polish steel producer Technologie Buczek (TB). The case concerned the actions taken by the Polish authorities in implementing a plan to restructure the steel industry. The GC found that the Commission had been correct to find that TB had benefited from a decision by the Polish authorities not to apply for bankruptcy but to allow the company to continue to operate without repaying its debts.

In previous issues of TransAtlantic, we reported that the UK Pensions Regulator had issued contribution notices (CNs) and financial support directions (FSDs) against insolvent companies in the Nortel and Lehman Brothers groups. Click here for the June story on Nortel (see page 5); click here for the November story on Lehman (see page 7).

The High Court has decided that financial support directions can be issued against insolvent companies as well as solvent ones.

The administrators of 20 insolvent companies in the Lehman Brothers and Nortel groups had argued that the Pensions Regulator’s Determinations Panel had no legal power to determine that it would be reasonable to issue FSDs against these companies. The High Court disagreed and decided:

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.

Summary and implications

Almost exactly one year on from the Order* coming into force, many people remain unaware that it is no longer possible to appoint an administrative receiver over an overseas incorporated company.

Lenders and indeed insolvency practitioners should be aware that this is the case even when dealing with qualifying floating charges created before 15 September 2003 but alternative strategies, including administration, may be pursued to the same effect.

Administrative receivership

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.)

Summary and implications

The Government is proposing to give struggling companies a protected moratorium against enforcement action, to help them to negotiate a restructuring deal with their creditors.

The moratorium would be available to all companies which are preparing a CVA or scheme of arrangement. At present, a moratorium is only available to small companies* who are proposing a CVA.

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.

If an administration order is made and a pending winding-up petition is subsequently dismissed, the costs of that petition are payable as an expense of the administration.1