Partnerships which are breaking up face a series of urgent problems – particularly where the business itself is becoming insolvent. These difficulties can be amplified by failing relationships between the partners (who have to work together to wind up the business) and the potential need to realise assets rapidly to stave off the appointment of liquidators.

Heads of Terms’ or ‘Memoranda of Agreement’ (“MoA”) are commonly agreed by parties as a precursor to entering into more substantial agreements.

MoA are often intended by the parties to be broad statement  of commercial intent to enter into a contract, rather than having contractual force themselves. Accordingly, MoA are often drafted with a more relaxed attitude towards their contents

However, no matter what the parties may have intended, a MoA can easily amount to a contract depending on its drafting, exposing the parties to unintended liabilities.

The recent unreported decision of the Bristol District Registry of the High Court in Blue Monkey Gaming Limited v Hudson & Others [2-14] All ER (D) 222 provides useful guidance for insolvency practitioners on the extent of their duties in respect of identification and preservation of ROT stock.

What was the case about?

The practice of energy companies in insolvency situations has long been a cause for frustration: in most cases the supplier will terminate the existing supply contract and a new - deemed - statutory contract at much higher rates will then apply.

After six years of legal action and investigations, the Pensions Regulator (TPR) has agreed a £184 million settlement with PwC, administrators for the Lehman Brothers Group, which has secured members' benefits under the UK pension scheme.  It also means the scheme will not go into the Pension Protection Fund (PPF).

Following the insolvency of the Lehman group in 2008, TPR began regulatory action in 2010 seeking the issue of a Financial Support Direction (FSD) to certain UK group companies.  An FSD requires recipients to provide extra financial support to a scheme.

This update considers the recent High Court decision in Thomasand Another v Edmondson (12/05.2014) concerning the court’s ability to make an income payment order against a bankrupt who is already subject to an income payment agreement.

The background

This update focusses on Teresa Graham’s recent review on pre-pack administration published by the  Government which sets out areas for improvement and provides detailed recommendations to help better the procedure.

The background

Preamble

The COMI rules prevent a foreign based company from accessing the UK insolvency regimes, unless it has a sufficient connection with the UK. However, in Christophorus 3 Limited the High Court approved the ‘flipping up’ of a specially created UK newco in a German group to enter administration.

The background

The High Court described this case as ‘an elaborate scheme for the restructuring and refinancing’ of a German group.

In a decision released on June 25, 2014, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that ASARCO LLC could not maintain CERCLA cost recovery actions against the trustees of residuary trusts created by the will of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. ASARCO, as part of its emergence from Chapter 11 bankruptcy, paid the US, the State of Washington, and the Port of Everett, Washington $50.2 million to settle pending CERCLA claims at two Superfund sites in Washington State.

A unanimous Supreme Court, in Executive Benefits Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Arkinson (In re Bellingham Ins. Agency, Inc.), 573 U.S. ___ (2014), confirmed a bankruptcy court’s power to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for the district court’s de novo review, even though such court is constitutionally barred from entering a final judgment on a bankruptcy-related claim under Stern v. Marshall.