In a decision to be welcomed by ratepayers, the Court of Appeal in Rossendale Borough Council and others v. Hurstwood Properties (A) Limited and others [2019] EWCA Civ 364 has confirmed that certain types of mitigation schemes are not sufficient to pierce the corporate veil and transfer liability for business rates to the beneficiaries of those schemes.
Liability for business rates
A year after its collapse, Carillion's insolvency continues to haunt both its supply chain and the wider UK construction industry. Many of those left unpaid had spent months chasing Carillion for payment, all the while staving off payment demands from others. Overnight, their debts became unsecured. The flow of cash from Carillion that would have paid its supply chain dried up. A cascade of consequential insolvencies was inevitable.
In the recent High Court judgment in VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Company) v Anan Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd,(1) the plaintiff successfully obtained a winding-up order on a debtor company six weeks after the service of a statutory demand for an underlying debt of $250 million.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently examined and then clarified and set forth the test for evaluating the appealability of bankruptcy orders in an opinion released in the case Ritzen Group v. Jackson Masonry. In doing so, the appellate court reaffirmed the “longstanding and textually-compelled rule of [a] looser finality” standard in bankruptcy as compared to general civil litigation, and concluded that a denial of a motion to lift stay was a final appealable order subject to the fourteen-day appeals period established in Bankruptcy Rule 8002(a).
Recently, in the Advance Watch bankruptcy, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that a bankruptcy judge is authorized to enter a final default judgment in an adversary proceeding against a foreign defendant who failed to respond to a validly-served summons and complaint, in spite of being an Article I judge.[1] Notably, the court found that the recent Supreme Court decision, Wellness International Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, 135 S. Ct. 1932 (2015), a further iteration of the Stern v.
Recently, in Anderson v.
In the recent decision in LBI EHF v. Raiffeisen Bank International AG [2018] EWCA Civ 719, the Court of Appeal has considered the close-out valuation provisions for "repo" trades entered into under a Global Master Repurchase Agreement (2000 edition). The court refused to limit the wide discretion given to a non-defaulting party to determine fair market value under the GMRA.
The factual background
Recent caselaw demonstrates that there is a current judicial disagreement over whether the Bankruptcy Code will permit a cramdown in a jointly-administered bankruptcy case when a consenting class exists for only one of the debtors. This implicates the important issue of de facto substantive consolidation and the potential risks it poses to unsecured creditors.