The property industry has seen a dramatic decline in capital values over the last two years with peak to trough falls of approximately 44 per cent compared to a peak to trough decline of approximately 27 per cent during the recession of the early 1990s. This, together with the effect of the challenging economic climate, has led to a number of high profile insolvencies of property owners, developers and occupiers. Given the uncertain economic outlook, it is likely that these trends will continue.

The shipping industry was arguably one of the hardest hit by the downturn that spread around the world late last year. The severe shipping slump, evidenced by a 93.5 per cent fall in the Baltic Dry Index between the summer of 2008 and December 2008, inevitably led to insolvencies of shipping companies across the globe1. This article briefly considers the unique challenges that insolvency practitioners face when balancing insolvency procedures against the application of maritime law.

The Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI) has published The Insolvency (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Rules 2009. These Rules amend the Insolvency (Scotland) Rules 1986 (S.I. 1986/1915). No Regulatory Impact Assessment has been prepared in relation to these Rules as they are not expected to impose any significant burdens on business.

View The Insolvency (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Rules 2009, 1 September 2009  

On August 28, 2009, Delta Financial Corp. (“Delta”) filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit seeking to overturn the dismissal of its coverage action against Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Co. (“Westchester”) and United States Fire Insurance Co. (“USFI”). The coverage action, which was filed as a part of an adversary proceeding with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, sought coverage under two D&O policies issued by Westchester and USFI respectively.

On August 11, a United States bankruptcy judge denied motions to dismiss the Chapter 11 cases of 21 special purpose entity (“SPE”) subsidiaries (the “Subject Debtors”) of General Growth Properties, Inc. (“GGP”). A final order denying the motions was entered on August 28. The decision raises a number of issues, primarily with respect to the role of independent managers, that are of particular interest to the commercial mortgage-backed securities (“CMBS”) industry.

Lessons from the GGP Cases

If Departmental activity, debate in Parliament and media articles are an indication, the Federal Government’s much awaited response to the Ripoll Report is imminent.  

The administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) have been intending to propose a scheme of arrangement under the English Companies Act to enable them to distribute several billions of dollars of assets held on trust by the company in the face of difficulties in establishing who was entitled to the trust assets; in particular, they had not received responses from all potentially interested clients, could not rely on the accuracy of the company's records and had not received all the information requested from sub-custodians and other intermediaries.

Summary

In Josef Syska (Administrator of Elektrim SA (in bankruptcy) and Elektrim SA (in bankruptcy) v Vivendi Universal SA & Others [2009] EWCA Civ 677 the main question to be decided by the Court of Appeal was whether, when an arbitration is proceeding in one Member State of the European Union, in this case the UK, and one of the parties to the arbitration becomes insolvent in another Member State, in this case Poland, the consequences of that insolvency, in so far as they affect the arbitration, are to be determined by the law of the Member State where the insolvency procee

Two D&O insurers have asked the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota to lift an automatic stay in a bankruptcy proceeding pending against their insureds so that the insurers can pursue their coverage defenses as counterclaims against the insureds in a pending declaratory judgment action.In Re Petters Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-45257 (Bankr. D. Minn.).