On June 9, 2014, a unanimous Supreme Court issued the latest in a series of key rulings regarding the extent of a bankruptcy court’s constitutional authority.¹ Notably, while Monday’s Executive Benefitsdecision answered one important question arising out of the Court’s 2011 decision in Stern v. Marshall,² it also left the primary question that resulted in a split in the Circuit Courts of Appeals to be decided another day.

The Aftermath of Stern v. Marshall

On 16 April 2014 we assisted J.K. Buckenham Limited (JKB) in successfully obtaining the court’s leave to convene a meeting of its creditors, a meeting at which JKB will ask such creditors to consider and to vote on a scheme of arrangement under the Companies Act 2006 (the Scheme). JKB is promoting the Scheme as part of a wider solution to end its broking obligations, release trapped cash, relinquish its FCA permissions, and ultimately liquidate.

THE SCHEME

American and British directors of corporations should be mindful of the different standards of conduct, obligations, and potential personal liability when holding directorships in Turkish companies, particularly if such companies’ financial situation is deteriorating.

Would you know what to do if you learned that one of your franchisees had filed for bankruptcy? Perhaps more importantly, would you know what not to do? While each circumstance and franchise agreement is different, there is a general framework for dealing with a franchisee in bankruptcy. Here we’ll introduce some of the issues you are likely to encounter throughout the bankruptcy process.

The Automatic Stay

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently affirmed the bankruptcy court decision in the Qimonda AG chapter 15 bankruptcy case,¹ providing that holders of intellectual property licenses based on U.S. patents are entitled to the special protections contained in 11 U.S.C. § 365(n).² In so doing, the court bolstered the rights of U.S. intellectual property licensees whose agreements might otherwise be vulnerable to termination in a cross-border insolvency proceeding.

Background

When the final version of the Omnibus II Directive comes into force, it will amend the Solvency II Directive so that it includes a sunrise clause, a phasing-in clause, and a run-off and restructuring exemption, as well as significant reporting and other transitional measures. It will also allow or require the European Commission and the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) to adopt “regulatory technical standards”,“implementing technical standards” and “comply or explain Guidelines”.

The English Court has devised a new route to impose liability on a company's UBO who strips assets from the company leaving creditors to claim in its insolvency. UBOs feeling comfortable about the security of their corporate veil after the Supreme Court’s decision in Prest^[1], will need to look carefully at this recent decision, which may be applied in other jurisdictions with corporate laws based on English law, such as BVI and Cyprus.

English courts may, when making ex parte (without notice) orders in a court-appointed receivership, include a final order that the defendant pays the costs incurred in obtaining the order notwithstanding that it was not notified of the application for the order.

The UK’s Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) has been developing its Early Warning Indicators (EWIs) for Solvency II internal model firms for more than a year.  From September 2013, it will expect these firms to:

In 2010, the Uniform Law Commission promulgated several amendments (Amendments) to Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (Article 9) designed to address problems that have arisen since revised Article 9 went into effect in 2001. Most, but not all, of the Amendments address the proper way to reflect debtor names on financing statements.

Timing and Enactment